Carter, II, Donald Ray v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 238th District Court of Midland County

Annotate this Case
Criminal Case Template

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

 
DONALD RAY CARTER, II

Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

Appellee.

 

 

 

 

No. 08-02-00119-CR

 

Appeal from the

 

238TH District Court

 

of Midland County, Texas

 

(TC# CR-26,337)

 
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possession of marijuana in an amount of more than four ounces and less than five pounds. Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana, a state jail felony and the jury set punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 180 days and a $450 fine. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

February 25, 2004

 

RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

 

Before Panel No. 4

Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and McClure, JJ.

 

(Do Not Publish)

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.