Court Opinion

ID: 8375449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-24 00:12:59.090614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:46:33.363866
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed October 20, 2022

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    __________

                                 No. 11-22-00024-CR
                                     __________

                 RAUL ARTHUR MORALES, Appellant
                                        V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 161st District Court
                              Ector County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. C-21-0988-CR

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The trial court convicted Appellant, Raul Arthur Morales, of the offense of
possession of a controlled substance: less than one gram of methamphetamine. See
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West Supp. 2022). The trial
court found both enhancement allegations to be true and assessed Appellant’s
punishment at imprisonment for ten years and a fine of $500. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 12.425(a) (West 2019). 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 provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, 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 to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant 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 that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1
        We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

                                                                 PER CURIAM

October 20, 2022
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