Court Opinion

ID: 9914793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 09:08:40.986254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:30.141981
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00024-CR

     CLAYTON CORNELIUS REYNOLDS, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 8th District Court
                 Delta County, Texas
                 Trial Court No. 7883

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

           A Delta County jury convicted Clayton Cornelius Reynolds of the third-degree-felony

offense of possession of one gram or more but less than four grams of methamphetamine,1 and

after his punishment range was enhanced as a habitual offender,2 the trial court sentenced him to

ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. Reynolds appeals.

           Reynolds’s appellate counsel filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found

no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings.

Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v.

California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

           On May 9, 2023, counsel mailed to Reynolds a copy of the brief, and on July 25, 2023,

counsel mailed to Reynolds a copy of the appellate record. Counsel informed Reynolds of his

rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. By order dated July 25, 2023, this Court

notified Reynolds that his pro se response to counsel’s brief was due on or before September 8,

2023.      By letter dated September 26, 2023, we notified Reynolds that the case would be

1
    TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(c) (Supp.).
2
    TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §12.42(d).
                                                      2
submitted on briefs on October 17, 2023. On October 5, 2023, this Court granted Reynolds, at

his request, an extension of time in which to file his pro se response until November 6, 2023. On

November 6, 2023, Reynolds filed his pro se response.

         We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.                        We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and Reynolds’s pro se response and have determined that no

arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must

affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.

         We affirm the judgment of the trial court.3

                                                       Charles van Cleef
                                                       Justice

Date Submitted:            December 27, 2023
Date Decided:              December 28, 2023

Do Not Publish

3
 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the
date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
                                                           3