NO. 12-13-00068-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SOMER JORDAN WHEAT, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 241ST 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Somer Wheat appeals her conviction for possession of between four and two hundred 

grams of methamphetamine, for which she was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years. 

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.

Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1969). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of between four and two hundred 

grams of methamphetamine and pleaded “guilty.” The matter proceeded to a bench trial on 

punishment. Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and sentenced her to 

imprisonment for fifteen years. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of 

the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an 

appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. 
2

In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 

[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural 

history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable 

issues for appeal.

Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which she raised the following issues: (1) the 

evidence is insufficient to support her conviction; (2) the statute under which she was charged 

contained vague terms, namely the terms “adulterants and dilutants,” that caused her to plead 

“guilty”; (3) her sentence is improper because the scale upon which the range of punishment is 

determined improperly the inclusion of byproducts and the like in the definition of “controlled 

substance”; and (4) she received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We have reviewed the 

record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Appellant filed an objection to the motion, and we carried 

both the motion and the objection for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding 

no reversible error, Appellant’s objection is overruled, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five 

days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise 

her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. 

Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this 

opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with 
3

the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered January 31, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 31, 2014

NO. 12-13-00068-CR

SOMER JORDAN WHEAT,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1168-12)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things 

affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith J., and Hoyle, J.