Laray High v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-06-00107-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LARAY HIGH, APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Laray High appeals his conviction for the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense, and his appellate counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant has not filed a brief, and the State formally waived the filing of a brief. We affirm.

Background

Appellant pleaded guilty to the first degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in an amount of more than four grams but less than 200 grams. There was no plea agreement, and the trial court found Appellant guilty and assessed punishment at fifty years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. Counsel notes that the record does not contain an acknowledgment of admonishments form signed by Appellant that he says is common in these cases. Counsel concedes, and our review reveals, that Appellant was given the proper admonishments before his guilty plea was accepted. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2006).

We have considered the brief submitted by Appellant s counsel and have conducted our own independent review of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Conclusion

As required, Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After considering the record and the brief and having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw.

Opinion delivered August 31, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)