Court Opinion

ID: 2901505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-09 17:12:42.269416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:06.668252
License: Public Domain

Criminal Case Template

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS

DONALD RAY CARTER, II

                            Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                            Appellee.
§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-02-00119-CR

Appeal from the

238TH District Court

of Midland County, Texas

(TC# CR-26,337)

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

	This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possession of marijuana in an
amount of more than four ounces and less than five pounds.  Following a jury trial, Appellant
was convicted of possession of marijuana, a state jail felony and the jury set punishment at
confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 180
days and a $450 fine.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.  
	Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that
the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87
S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436
S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to
Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and
file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.
	We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal
is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find nothing in the record that might
arguably support the appeal.  A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief
would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
	The judgment is affirmed.
February 25, 2004

 

   
         						RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

Before Panel No. 4
Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and McClure, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)