Charlie William Canida v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 6th District Court of Lamar County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-06-00205-CR
______________________________
CHARLIE CANIDA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 6th Judicial District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20151
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charlie Canida appeals from his jury conviction of possession of a controlled substance under one gram. (1) See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115 (Vernon 2003). The trial court sentenced Canida to confinement for one year at a state-jail facility. Canida was represented by appointed counsel at trial and by different appointed counsel on appeal. Canida's attorney has filed an appellate brief in which he concludes that, after a review of the record and the related law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

The appeal in this case concerns the arrest of Canida for possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine. Police were at a property called the "Fish Camp" (this group of buildings, travel trailers, and a boat ramp is used by "squatters" on land owned by either Kiamichi Railroad or by the State of Texas) to serve an arrest warrant on one of the occupants of the camp. While the police were there, Canida (who used the camp occasionally, and who was an "owner" of a travel trailer there) drove by, slowed, but did not stop. The police followed Canida and stopped him for a traffic violation. Canida gave permission to search his pickup truck. The police found less than one gram of methamphetamine in the pocket of the door of Canida's truck.

Appellate counsel summarizes the trial in his brief and states that he has studied the record and finds no error preserved for appeal that could be successfully argued. The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record and advances three arguable grounds for review. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Canida on January 23, 2007, informing Canida of his right to examine the entire appellate record and to file a pro se response. Counsel simultaneously filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Canida has not filed a response, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have reviewed the possible issues raised by counsel in his appellate brief, and we agree with his assessment that no reversible error exists. Our review of the record has not revealed other error. (2)

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

Jack Carter

Justice

 

Date Submitted: April 2, 2007

Date Decided: April 3, 2007

 

Do Not Publish

1. The offense addressed in this opinion was tried together with an offense for possession of a controlled substance of four to 200 grams of methamphetamine. That judgment is being appealed separately, and those issues are addressed in our opinion issued in cause number 06-06-00204-CR.

2. Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Canida in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Canida wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Canida must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.