Mark Nunley v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
MARK NUNLEY, APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
Mark Nunley ( Appellant ) appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, for which he was sentenced to eighteen months of confinement. Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of less than one gram, including any adulterants and dilutants. // This offense is a state jail felony. // On August 25, 2003, Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the offense charged in the indictment. Appellant and his counsel signed an acknowledgment of admonishments, a waiver of jury trial, a waiver of confrontation, an agreement to stipulate testimony, and a written stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that all elements pleaded in the indictment were true. However, Appellant did not waive his right to appeal. On September 11, the trial court assessed Appellant s punishment at eighteen months of confinement. // This appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of the brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to raise any meritorious issues for appeal. We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.
Opinion delivered September 8, 2004.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)