Filed: Dec. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2017
Summary: Do not publish MEMORANDUM OPINION PATRICK A. PIRTLE , Justice . Following an open plea of guilty to the bench, Appellant, Preston Scott Russell, was sentenced to confinement for fifteen years and assessed a fine of $2,500 for possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, of one gram or more but less than four grams. 1 Punishment was enhanced by a prior felony conviction which elevated the punishment range to that of a second degree felony. 2 In presenting this appeal, cou
Summary: Do not publish MEMORANDUM OPINION PATRICK A. PIRTLE , Justice . Following an open plea of guilty to the bench, Appellant, Preston Scott Russell, was sentenced to confinement for fifteen years and assessed a fine of $2,500 for possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, of one gram or more but less than four grams. 1 Punishment was enhanced by a prior felony conviction which elevated the punishment range to that of a second degree felony. 2 In presenting this appeal, coun..
More
Do not publish
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PATRICK A. PIRTLE, Justice.
Following an open plea of guilty to the bench, Appellant, Preston Scott Russell, was sentenced to confinement for fifteen years and assessed a fine of $2,500 for possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, of one gram or more but less than four grams.1 Punishment was enhanced by a prior felony conviction which elevated the punishment range to that of a second degree felony.2 In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders3 brief in support of a motion to withdraw.4 We affirm and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects no potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant's conviction. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.5 By letter, this court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel's brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
By the Anders brief, counsel evaluates possible arguments on appeal including the trial court's evidentiary rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence, the effectiveness of trial counsel's representation, the voluntariness of Appellant's plea, and the legality of the sentence imposed. He concludes they would not result in reversible error and concedes there are no arguable issues to advance on appeal.
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the entire record as well as counsel's brief, we agree with counsel that there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant's conviction. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
