Quincey Lakeith Gibson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-09-00162-CR Quincey Lakeith Gibson, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 08-383-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Quincey Lakeith Gibson pleaded guilty to possessing more than four grams of cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (d) (West 2003). He also pleaded true to allegations of two previous felony convictions. The court adjudged him guilty and imposed a forty-five year prison sentence. Appellant s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. ___________________________________________ J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson Affirmed Filed: September 25, 2009 Do Not Publish 2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.