Court Opinion

ID: 2916976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 21:14:45.862825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:20.229400
License: Public Domain

NO.
12-05-00316-CR
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
TYLER, TEXAS
JOSEPH LEE LOPEZ,        §                      APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT
 
V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE   §                      SMITH
COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                                                                                                                           

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
            Joseph Lee
Lopez appeals his conviction for possession of between two hundred and four
hundred grams of methamphetamine, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment
for life.  Appellant’s counsel filed a
brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87
S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436
S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  We
affirm.
                                                
Background
            Appellant
was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance, specifically
between 200 and 400 grams of methamphetamine. 
Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury
trial.  Following the presentation of
evidence, the jury found Appellant guilty as charged and assessed Appellant’s
punishment at imprisonment for life.  The
trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.
 
Analysis
Pursuant to Anders v. California
            Appellant’s
counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v.
State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s counsel
states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error
upon which an appeal can be predicated. 
She further relates that she is well acquainted with the facts in this
case.  In compliance with Anders,
Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the
procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is
unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1  We have likewise reviewed the record for
reversible error and have found none.
                                                                                                            
Conclusion
            As
required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion for consideration with
the merits.  Having done so and finding
no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
 
 
 
Opinion
delivered May 24, 2006.
Panel
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1
Counsel for Appellant certified in her motion to withdraw that she provided
Appellant with a copy of this brief. 
Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause.  The time for filing such a brief has expired
and we have received no pro se brief.