Court Opinion

ID: 9958012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 06:14:47.023023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:41.276033
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed April 4, 2024

                                    In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                  __________

                              No. 11-22-00335-CR
                                  __________

                     MARVA DENAY NEAL, Appellant

                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 244th District Court
                              Ector County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. C-22-0653-CR

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Appellant, Marva Denay Neal, was convicted of possession of
methamphetamine, a controlled substance, in an amount of four grams or more but
less than two-hundred grams, a second-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), 481.115(d) (West Supp. 2023). Appellant pled “true” to
the enhancement allegation, and the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at twenty
years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice and a $1,000 fine. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(b) (West
2019).
      At the guilt/innocence phase of trial, the State called three witnesses: two
police officers who stopped and searched Appellant, and the drug analyst who
confirmed the substance found on Appellant was methamphetamine. The jury saw
the officers’ body-cam footage showing Appellant admitting to the searching officer
that she had a “baggie containing a clear crystal-like substance” hidden in her bra.
The methamphetamine found on Appellant was introduced at trial, along with the
lab report.
      The jury found Appellant guilty, and the State introduced thirty-one exhibits
during the punishment phase and called four witnesses. Appellant had at least four
felony convictions for which she served time in prison. Law enforcement witnesses
testified that Appellant was stopped and ultimately arrested on June 22, 2022, while
the instant drug case was pending, with what was later confirmed through lab testing
to be methamphetamine. Appellant was also in possession of “about [twenty-one]
debit and credit cards, some social security cards,” and other identification not
belonging to Appellant or her vehicle passengers. After finding a hotel room key in
Appellant’s vehicle, police searched her hotel room pursuant to a search warrant and
found suspected Fentanyl, and a ledger of drug sales.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. 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, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of her

                                          2
right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of her right to
file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Therefore, 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 filed pro se responses to counsel’s Anders brief asserting, from
what we can construe, ineffective assistance of counsel.1 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 the appeal is
without merit. The record shows that trial counsel visited Appellant while she was
confined in jail awaiting trial, filed a pretrial motion in limine, conducted a pretrial
investigation, and conferred with Appellant regarding trial strategy.                            Counsel
likewise cross-examined each witness, and objected to the State’s evidence. We

        1
          Appellant claims that her trial counsel’s “misrepresentation” warrants a new trial. Although we
liberally construe briefs in the interest of justice, we cannot discern Appellant’s specific arguments, and
will not brief her case for her. See Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), cert.
denied, 522 U.S. 917 (1997) (“Without substantive argument or supporting authorities, we cannot
adequately evaluate appellant’s ineffective assistance claim.”); Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 512
(Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (“Appellant cites no authority in support of his proposition, nor does he provide
any argument beyond his conclusory assertion.”); Edmondson v. State, 399 S.W.3d 607, 612 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 2013, no pet.) (finding that the appellant waived his complaint because he failed “to show that the
record and the law support[ed] his argument”).

                                                     3
further observe that the record did not reveal any illegality regarding the stop and
search of Appellant. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel
that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 2
        Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

                                                          W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
                                                          JUSTICE

April 4, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

        2
         We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                     4