Derreck Cowley v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 106th District Court of Garza County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-11-0391-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JANUARY 10, 2012 DERRECK COWLEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ___________________________ FROM THE 106TH DISTRICT COURT OF GARZA COUNTY; NO. 10-2562; HONORABLE CARTER T. SCHILDKNECHT, PRESIDING Memorandum Opinion Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Derreck Cowley (appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. After his motion to suppress was denied, he pled guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct.1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated December 5, 2011, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by January 4, 2012, if he wished to do so. To date, a response has not been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed one potential area for appeal which included the trial court s denial of appellant s motion to suppress. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issue was without merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with counsel s conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion. 2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.
