Eddison Ray Dotson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 262nd District Court of Harris County

NUMBERS 13-00-016-CR 

13-00-017-CR
 

COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

EDDISON RAY DOTSON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 262nd District Court of Harris County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N
Before Justices Hinojosa, Chavez, and Rodriguez
Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

On October 6, 1999, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance and delivery of less than one gram of a controlled substance.(1) The jury found appellant guilty of both offenses and assessed his punishment at (1) ten years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for the offense of possession of a controlled substance and (2) twelve and one-half years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, plus a $5000.00 fine, for the offense of delivery of a controlled substance. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief wherein he sets out that he reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record, and has concluded the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), as it presents a professional evaluation of each record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant's counsel states in the brief that he has informed appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Thirty days have passed since appellant was so advised, and he has not filed any pro se brief.

In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), the Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." We have carefully reviewed the record in each appeal and, finding nothing that would arguably support an appeal in either cause, agree that each appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Additionally, in accordance with Anders, counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant in both cases. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant appellant's attorney's motion to withdraw. Furthermore, we order him to notify appellant of the disposition of each appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

31st day of August, 2000.

1. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.112 & 481.115 (Vernon Supp. 2000).