Logan Trey Field v. The State of Texas Appeal from 216th Judicial District Court of Gillespie County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION Nos. 04-17-00400-CR, 04-17-00401-CR, 04-17-00402-CR, & 04-17-00403-CR Logan Trey FIELD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 5810, 5811, 5812, & 5813 Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 19, 2018 AFFIRMED, MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Appellant Logan Trey Field was indicted for two counts of possession of a controlled substance and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. In cause number 5811, Field was charged with possession of marijuana in an amount of five pounds or less but more than four ounces; and in cause number 5812, Field was charged with possession of tetrahydrocannabinol in an amount of four grams or more but less than 400 grams. In cause number 5810, Field was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, specifically, hydrocodone or dihydrocodeinone, in an amount of twenty-eight grams or more but 04-17-00400-CR, 04-17-00401-CR, 04-17-00402-CR, & 04-17-00403-CR less than 200 grams; and in cause number 5813, Field was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, specifically, cocaine, in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. Field filed motions to suppress in each case. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motions to suppress. Thereafter, pursuant to a plea bargain, Field pled guilty to the charges in the indictments. The trial court sentenced appellant to two years in the state jail division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) in cause number 5811; ten years in the institutional division of TDCJ in cause number 5812; fifteen years in the institutional division of TDCJ in cause number 5810; and thirty years in the institutional division of TDCJ in cause number 5813. In each case, the trial court signed a certification stating it was a plea bargain case, but Field had the right to appeal because matters were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. Field timely filed a notice of appeal in each case. We consolidated the cases for purposes of briefing. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief and motions to withdraw. In the brief, counsel states he conducted a thorough review of the record in each case and concluded the appeals are frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that Field was provided with copies of the brief and motions to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief in each case. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Field did not file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s briefs. We agree that these appeals are frivolous and without merit. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. Furthermore, we grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. -2- 04-17-00400-CR, 04-17-00401-CR, 04-17-00402-CR, & 04-17-00403-CR No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Field wish to seek further review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file petitions for discretionary review or file pro se petitions for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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. Karen Angelini, Justice Do not publish -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.