Emery Hastings v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 292nd District Court of Dallas County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Emery Hastings

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-03-00017-CR B Appeal from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

The jury convicted Emery Hastings of possession of cocaine. Appellant entered pleas of true to the enhancement allegations, and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for 25 years. We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he reviews in detail the indictment, the pretrial proceedings, the jury selection, the sufficiency of the evidence, objections presented to the trial court, the jury charge, the punishment phase of the trial, and trial counsel=s performance. Counsel concludes that the record does not reflect any arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. Dallas Police Officer Jamie Castro testified that, as he walked by appellant=s parked car, he saw appellant cutting a cookie of crack cocaine with a razor blade. The large round chunk of cocaine was on top of a CD case in appellant=s lap. When he saw Officer Castro, appellant placed the cocaine in his mouth and tried to lock the car door. However, Officer Castro opened the car door; and appellant lunged at him. A struggled ensued, and Officer Castro saw appellant throw the cocaine into the parking lot. The forensic laboratory report revealed that the rock or cookie contained 11.5 grams of cocaine. The evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the jury=s verdict. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex.Cr.App.2002); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).

The record reflects that appellant received reasonably effective assistance of trial counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). The record further supports the trial court=s ruling on the motion to suppress. Loserth v. State, 963 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Tex.Cr.App.1998); Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Cr.App.1997). We agree that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

September 25, 2003

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.