Court Opinion

ID: 9882119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 08:28:56.854726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:49.498451
License: Public Domain

In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                        Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                         No. 07-23-00120-CR

                        DARRELL DEWEESE MCCRAY, APPELLANT

                                                   V.

                              THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                           On Appeal from the 227th District Court
                                   Bexar County, Texas1
            Trial Court No. 2019CR4690, Honorable Christine Del Prado, Presiding

                                       September 27, 2023
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                       Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Subject to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant, Darrell Deweese McCray, pled

nolo contendre to the offense of possession of a controlled substance, penalty group one,

in an amount less than one gram.2 Appellant also pled true to enhancement allegations

       1 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Fourth Court of Appeals by docket equalization

order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
       2 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b).
that raised the punishment for the charged offense to that of a third-degree felony.3 In

accordance with the plea bargain, the trial court found Appellant guilty, sentenced him to

three years’ incarceration and a $1,000 fine, and suspended the sentence and placed

Appellant on community supervision for three years. The State filed a motion to revoke

community supervision.4 While the State’s motion was pending, Appellant filed a motion

to withdraw his prior plea. This motion was denied by the trial court by written order. The

trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion, after which the trial court entered judgment

revoking Appellant’s community supervision and imposing the original sentence of three

years’ incarceration and $1,000 fine. From this judgment, Appellant timely appealed. In

presenting this appeal, counsel for Appellant has filed an Anders5 brief in support of a

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

       Counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the

record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal

can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim.

App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities,

there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. In a letter to Appellant, counsel

notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the Anders brief and a

motion to request the appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se

response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying

       3 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425(a).

       4 The State supplemented its motion to add an additional alleged violation.

       5 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

                                                   2
appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an

Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se

response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has

not filed a brief.

        By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such

issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we

agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal.

        Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.6

                                                                   Judy C. Parker
                                                                      Justice

Do not publish.

        6 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.

                                                      3