BUFORD RANDLE v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 105th District Court of Nueces County

NUMBER 13-06-014-CR

 
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

BUFORD RANDLE, Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant, Buford Randle, was indicted and convicted for possession of less than one gram of cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115(b) (Vernon 2003). He was sentenced to 18 months in state jail and assessed a $500 fine. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Randle's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that she has diligently reviewed the record and concluded that appellant has no non-frivolous grounds for appeal.

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), appellant's counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel's brief identifies a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence as the only possible grounds for appeal. Counsel's brief presents a professional evaluation of why the record does not support the challenge, which according to counsel would be "wholly frivolous." See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel certifies that she has served a copy of her brief on appellant and has informed appellant of his right to file a pro se brief. No such brief has been filed. Counsel has also asked this Court for permission to withdraw from the case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We conclude that counsel has complied with the requirements stated in Anders and High. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed, and counsel's request to withdraw is granted. Counsel is ordered to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).

_________________________

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

 

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 22nd day of February, 2007.