Louis Dell Butler v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 108th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-05-0333-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A AUGUST 28, 2006 ______________________________ LOUIS DELL BUTLER, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; NO. 49,970-E; HONORABLE RICHARD DAMBOLD, JUDGE _______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Louis Dell Butler, appeals his conviction for possession of marihuana and sentence of fifteen years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and $7,000 fine. Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). We affirm. Appellant s counsel, in compliance with Anders and Gainous, states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated. Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and discusses why, under the controlling authorities, there is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings and judgment. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has attached an exhibit showing that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been forwarded to appellant and that counsel has provided appellant a copy of the record for his review and has advised him of his right to file a pro se response to counsel s motion and brief. The clerk of this court has also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel s brief. Appellant has not filed a response. We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous grounds upon which an appeal could arguably be founded. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds. Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App. Waco 1994, writ ref d). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having considered the merits and finding no reversible error, appellant s counsel s motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2
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.
