Jarvis Duran Lovelady v. State of Texas--Appeal from 284th District Court of Montgomery County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-01-145 CR
____________________
JARVIS DURAN LOVELADY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 284th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 00-09-05488-CR
OPINION

Jarvis Duran Lovelady pleaded guilty to an indictment for the third degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of 1 gram or more but less than 4 grams. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115(a),(c) (Vernon Supp. 2001). The trial court convicted and sentenced Lovelady to five years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

 

After appeal was perfected, appellate 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 High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief concludes that the record presents no arguable error which would support an appeal, a conclusion with which we concur. On June 28, 2001, Lovelady was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief if he so desired. The appellant did not file a pro se brief.

There was no plea bargain agreement between Lovelady and the State. We have jurisdiction over the appeal. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Lovelady filed a written motion to suppress, which challenged the legality of the search of the automobile from which the contraband was recovered. The trial court conducted a pre-trial evidentiary hearing and denied the motion to suppress prior to receiving Lovelady's guilty plea. We assume that the guilty plea is not independent of the denial of Lovelady's motion to suppress, and have considered the merits of the issues raised in the pre-trial hearing. See Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

Officer Jerry Elam testified that he stopped Lovelady for driving a motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit. Lovelady did not have a valid driver's license. Officer Elam observed a set of scales and clear plastic baggies in plain view on the back seat. The passenger, Michael Williams, owned the vehicle. Williams consented to the search of the vehicle. As the officer obtained the owner's consent to search the vehicle, and that consent was not shown to be coerced, Lovelady's consent was not required in order for the officer to lawfully search the vehicle. Williams v. State, 621 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).

We have reviewed the clerk's and the reporter's records, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on October 22, 2001

Opinion Delivered January 16, 2002

Do Not Publish

 

Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.