### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 02 11 -C R

______________________________ AL GERI AN DEWAYNE H ARRI S, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the Six th J udicial District Court

L amar County , Texas Trial Court No. 22708

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Alg eria n Dewa y ne Ha rris appea ls f

rom his conviction on his open plea of g uilty to delivery of a c ontrolled substance (coc aine) in a drug- fre e z one. Har ris also pled "true" to the enhanc ement pa ra g ra ph s o f t he ind ic tme nt a

nd wa s se nte nc e d a s a

re pe a t of fe nd e r to eig hte e n y e ars ' imp ri so nme nt. Har ris was re prese nted by

appointed counse l at trial and on a ppeal. Ha rris' attorney

has filed a brief in which he c oncludes that the a ppeal is fr ivolous and without merit, after a revie w of the rec ord and the re lated law. Counsel states that he has studied the re co rd and finds no error prese rved f

or appe al that could be suc cessf

ully argued. The brief c ontains a prof essional evaluation of the rec ord and advanc es two arguable g rounds for revie w. This me ets the require ments ofAn de rs v. Cal ifo rn ia , 386 U. S. 7 38 (1 96 7) ; Sta

ffo rd v . S tat e , 813 S.W .2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and Hi gh v . S tat e , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1978). Couns e l ma ile d a

c op y of the br ie f t o H arr is M ay 6, 20 09, in fo rm ingHa rr is o f h is r ig ht t o examine the entire a

ppellate r ecor d and to file a pro se r espons e. C ounsel simultaneously filed a mot ion wi th t his Court se e kin g to w ith dr aw a s c ouns e l in thi s a pp e a l. H arr is f

ile d h is r e sp on se September 10, 2009. We have de termined that this appea l is wholly frivolous. We have inde pendently revie wed the c le rk ' s re c or d a

nd the re po rt e r' s r e c or d, and we a g re e that no argua

ble iss ue s su

pp or t an a pp e a l. Se e Bl e ds oe v . S

tat e , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).Since we ag ree this c ase prese nts no reve rsible err or, we also, in a ccor dance with An de rs , 1 g ra nt c ouns e l' s re qu e st to wi thd ra w fr om fu rt he r re pr e se ntatio n of Ha

rr is in thi s c a se . N o s ub sti tut e counsel will be a

ppointed. Should Harris wish to seek f urther r eview of

this case by the Texas Court of C riminal Appea ls, Har ris must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discre tionary revie w or Ha rris must f

ile a pro se petition for discr etionary revie w. Any

petition for discre tionary revie w must be filed within thirty d ay s fr o m t h e date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for re he ari ng that wa s o ve rr

ule d b y thi s Co ur t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discre tionary revie w m ust be filed with this Court, afte r which it will be forwa rded to the Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls along with the rest of the filings in this case

. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 68.3. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply

with the require men t s o f Rule 68.4 of the Te x as Rules of Appellate Proc edure

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4. 3 We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt . 1

J ack Ca

rter J ustice Date Submitted: October 1, 2009 Date D ecide d: October 2, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh