## 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 241S T

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 , 4 36 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was cha rged 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
im prisonment for fifteen years . This appeal followed

.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA 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
, G ainous
, 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 s he 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 d ilutants,” 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 recei ved ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We have reviewed the
record for reversible error and have found n one. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION 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 f or 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 t his 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 h er right to file a petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re
Schul man , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, s he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on her behalf or s he must file a petition for discretiona ry 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretion ary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with3

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 TEXA S

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)

TH I S CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record an d briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there w as 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

.