Danny Gable v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County

NOS. 12-04-00059-CR

12-04-00060-CR

12-04-00061-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DANNY GABLE, APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Danny Gable appeals two convictions for possession and manufacture of four hundred grams or more of methamphetamine, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty years on the possession charge and forty years on the manufacturing charge. Appellant further appeals his conviction for possession of less than one gram of cocaine, for which he was sentenced to confinement for two years and fined ten thousand dollars. 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.

Background

In three separate causes, Appellant pleaded guilty to the possession // and manufacture // of four hundred grams or more of methamphetamine, both first degree felonies. Appellant further pleaded guilty to possessing less than one gram of cocaine, a state jail felony. // The trial court admonished Appellant, and Appellant signed stipulations of evidence with regard to each charged offense. The trial court found Appellant guilty as charged and, after a hearing on punishment, sentenced him to imprisonment for thirty years on the conviction of possession of methamphetamine, imprisonment for forty years on the conviction of manufacture of methamphetamine, and confinement for two years and a ten thousand dollar fine for the conviction of possession of cocaine. The court ordered that Appellant s sentences run concurrently. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

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).Appellant s counsel states 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. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. // We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with our consideration of this matter. 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 January 26, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)