Willard Stewart Suggs v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 124th District Court of Gregg County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-08-00166-CR ______________________________ WILLARD STEWART SUGGS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 35203-B Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Willard Stewart Suggs appeals from his conviction on his open plea of guilty to the state-jail felony of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of less than one gram. See TEX . HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN . § 481.115(b) (Vernon 2003). He was sentenced to one year's confinement. See TEX . PENAL CODE ANN . § 12.35 (Vernon Supp. 2008). Suggs was represented by different, appointed, counsel at trial and on appeal. Suggs' attorney has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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 Suggs on December 10, 2008, informing Suggs 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. Suggs has not filed a pro se response, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to file such a response. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 2 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: February 13, 2009 February 17, 2009 Do Not Publish 1 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Suggs in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Suggs wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Suggs must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Suggs 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. See TEX . R. APP . P. 68.4. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
