Henry Columbus Bean, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 121st District Court of Terry County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-05-0458-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 ______________________________ HENRY COLUMBUS BEAN, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY; NO. 5166; HON. KELLY G. MOORE, PRESIDING _______________________________ Memorandum Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Henry Columbus Bean, Jr. appeals his conviction for possessing a controlled substance (cocaine) in an amount of less than one gram. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to an enhanced punishment of twenty years confinement and a fine of $10,000. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief in which he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel attached a copy of a letter 1 Anders v. California, 386 U .S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (19 67). sent to appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response or pro se brief. By letter dated July 24, 2006, this court also notified appellant of his right to tender his own brief or response and set August 23, 2006, as the deadline to do so. To date, no response has been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel reviewed the various stages of the trial and discussed several potential areas for appeal. However, he adequately explained why each argument lacks merit. We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to reveal any reversible error. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2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.
