Court Opinion

ID: 9946108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 09:13:40.315131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:25.784346
License: Public Domain

In The
                                Court of Appeals
                       Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                       No. 07-23-00335-CR

                               GARY REEVES, JR., APPELLANT

                                                  V.

                             THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                           On Appeal from the 87th District Court
                                  Freestone County, Texas
             Trial Court No. 23-031CR, Honorable Amy Thomas Ward, Presiding

                                       February 26, 2024
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

      Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed

pursuant to Anders v. California.1 Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Gary Reeves,

Jr., was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance in an amount of four

      1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
grams or more but less than two hundred, enhanced.2 A jury assessed a sentence of

twenty-five years’ confinement.3

        In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a

conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects no potentially

plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008).             Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling

authorities, the record support that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978).             Counsel has demonstrated he has complied with the

requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to

Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and

(3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.4 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to

exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409

n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a response.

        2 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(b).

        3 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by
the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
Should a conflict exist between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant
issue, this appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court . TEX. R. APP. P.
41.3.
        4 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply
with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days
after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id. at 408 n.22, 411. The duty to
send the client a copy of this Court’s decision 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. Id. at 411 n.33.

                                                      2
                                        ANALYSIS

       By the Anders brief, counsel evaluates the proceedings and reviews trial counsel’s

representation. He also assesses the trial court’s denial of an instruction for attempted

possession which is reviewed for abuse of discretion.         He candidly concedes no

meritorious issues are presented which would result in reversible error.

       We too have independently examined the record to determine whether there are

any non-frivolous issues which might support this appeal. 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;

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such

issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree there is no plausible basis for reversal

of Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005).

                                       CONCLUSION

       The trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

                                                        Alex Yarbrough
                                                            Justice

Do not publish.

                                            3