Court Opinion

ID: 4522574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-04 00:16:22.061845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:37.497636
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed April 2, 2020

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                              No. 11-19-00296-CR
                                  __________

                  JACOB WEST HATHAWAY, Appellant
                                V.
                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                      On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
                              Taylor County, Texas
                          Trial Court Cause No. 27773A

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Appellant, Jacob West Hathaway, waived a jury and entered an open plea of
guilty to the second-degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance in
the amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. The trial court recessed
the plea hearing and ordered a presentence investigation report. After an evidentiary
hearing, the trial court convicted Appellant of the offense and assessed Appellant’s
punishment at confinement for ten years. We affirm.
          Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of both the clerk’s record
and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the
records and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-
appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
          Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have
reviewed Appellant’s response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response,
a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and
issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible
error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial
court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently
reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal
exist.1

          1
         We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.

                                                    2
         We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial
court.

                                                                   PER CURIAM

April 2, 2020
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating.

         2
          Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland,
sitting by assignment.

                                                      3