Court Opinion

ID: 9840336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-16 06:08:35.982682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.746846
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed September 14, 2023

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   ___________

                              No. 11-22-00246-CR
                                   ___________

                 MONTE DAWN MCGOWAN, Appellant
                                         V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
                            Taylor County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 29506-A

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Monte Dawn McGowan, Appellant, waived his right to a jury trial and entered
an open plea of guilty to the offense of possession of methamphetamine, a third-
degree felony, enhanced with a prior felony conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE. ANN.
§ 12.42(a) (West 2019); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (c)
(West Supp. 2022). Appellant pled “true” to the State’s enhancement allegation.
Appellant testified at sentencing. The trial court found Appellant guilty and assessed
his punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.
        Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy
of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of
both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his
right to review the record and file a response and of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking
review by that court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied
with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
        Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the
procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the
record, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 1
        Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

                                                         W. STACY TROTTER
                                                         JUSTICE
September 14, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

        1
         We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                                                     2