Court Opinion

ID: 9910646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 11:10:57.40629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:39.090696
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00175-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

JAMES CONAN REEVES,                             §      APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                        PER CURIAM

       James Conan Reeves appeals his convictions for possession of between four and two
hundred fifty grams of methamphetamine. 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 with possession of between four and two hundred fifty grams of
methamphetamine. The indictment further alleged that Appellant previously was convicted of
manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the
matter proceeded to a jury trial.
       The evidence at trial indicated that, on February 25, 2020, Smith County Sheriff’s
Narcotics Investigator Braylon Barnes stopped a vehicle for failure to display a front license
plate. Appellant, the driver and owner of the vehicle, acted nervously after the stop. Barnes also
noted that he was very sweaty and had sores on the upper part of his arm near the elbow, which
Barnes stated could be indicative of narcotics use.       Barnes discovered Appellant had an
outstanding warrant and placed him under arrest. When Barnes performed a pat-down search of
Appellant, he discovered a modified straw, which contained methamphetamine residue, in
Appellant’s pocket.
        Thereafter, Smith County Sheriff’s Deputy Corey Cameron led his K-9 dog around the
vehicle to perform an “open air” search. The dog alerted to Appellant’s vehicle, indicating its
detection of the odor of illegal narcotics. During the ensuing search of the vehicle, Cameron
discovered a plastic, unlabeled bottle in a backpack which contained a liquid later identified as
methamphetamine. He also found scales, small baggies, spoons, syringes, and straws in the
backpack, which he stated likely was used in the ingestion of illegal narcotics such as
methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine. He also found pipes with methamphetamine residue on
them.
        Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory Forensic Scientist Lauren Perry
testified that she received and tested a plastic bottle containing clear liquid recovered from
Appellant’s vehicle. Her test results indicated the clear liquid in the bottle contained 96.98
grams of methamphetamine.
        After the close of evidence and argument of counsel, the jury found Appellant “guilty” as
charged. The matter proceeded to a trial on punishment, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to
the enhancement allegation. Ultimately, the jury found the enhancement allegation to be “true”
and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for sixty years. 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 and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he 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. He further relates that he 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. [Panel
Op.] 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 likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

        1
          In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,

                                                        2
                                                  CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
         As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this
opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should
comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered December 14, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief
has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                        DECEMBER 14, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00175-CR

                                     JAMES CONAN REEVES,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1908-20)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                       It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below is affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for
observance.

                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.