Court Opinion

ID: 2953048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-16 22:16:35.351348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:24.461526
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-09-00171-CR

                                 Alfred Ray Blevins, Appellant

                                                 v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

     FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
            NO. CR22,226, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Alfred Ray Blevins was convicted of possession of less than one gram

cocaine, enhanced to a third-degree felony by two prior convictions. Appellant’s appointed attorney

has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

               Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at

743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d
684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.
               We have considered the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We have reviewed the evidence presented to the jury and the

procedures that were observed and find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

                                               ___________________________________________

                                               David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: January 13, 2010

Do Not Publish

       1
           No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of
his case by the 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. See generally Tex. R. App.
P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the court of criminal appeals). A petition for discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from the later of the date of this opinion or our overruling of
the last timely motion for rehearing. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be filed with this
Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal appeals along with the rest of the
filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should
comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5.

                                                  2