Court Opinion

ID: 2919041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:12:30.779226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:23.961490
License: Public Domain

NUMBERS  13-00-016-CR
 						  13-00-017-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
____________________________________________________________________

EDDISON RAY DOTSON,							Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,							Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 262nd District Court of Harris County,

Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Chavez, and Rodriguez
Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

	On October 6, 1999, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses
of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance and
delivery of less than one gram of a controlled substance.(1)  The jury
found appellant guilty of both offenses and assessed his punishment at
(1) ten years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice for the offense of possession of a
controlled substance and (2) twelve and one-half years imprisonment
in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
plus a $5000.00 fine, for the offense of delivery of a controlled
substance.  We affirm.

	Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief wherein he sets
out that he reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record, and has
concluded the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  Appellant's brief
meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), as
it presents a professional evaluation of each record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal.  See Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).  Appellant's counsel states
in the brief that he has informed appellant of his right to examine the
appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  Thirty days have passed since
appellant was so advised, and he has not filed any pro se brief.  

	In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), the Supreme Court
advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief,
they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide
whether the case is wholly frivolous."  We have carefully reviewed the
record in each appeal and, finding nothing that would arguably support
an appeal in either cause, agree that each appeal is wholly frivolous and
without merit.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991).  The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

	Additionally, in accordance with Anders, counsel filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel for appellant in both cases.  See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744.  We grant appellant's attorney's motion to withdraw. 
Furthermore, we order him to notify appellant of the disposition of each
appeal and of the availability of discretionary review.  See Ex parte
Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

							FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

							Justice

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

31st day of August, 2000.

1. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.112 & 481.115 (Vernon Supp.
2000).