Tony Leemarka Battles v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County (per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 12-11-00200-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS TONY LEEMARKA BATTLES, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Tony LeeMarka Battles appeals his conviction for possession of marihuana. Appellant s counsel has filed a brief asserting 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). We affirm. BACKGROUND The State charged Appellant by information with the misdemeanor offense of possession of marihuana in 2010. As alleged, the offense was a class A misdemeanor because it was alleged that Appellant possessed less than two ounces of marihuana within one thousand feet of a public park. 1 Appellant pleaded guilty. The trial court accepted his plea of guilty and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of two years. In 2011, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication. In its application, the State alleged that Appellant consumed and possessed marihuana, failed to complete his community service obligations, failed to pay fees, and failed to submit proof that he had 1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.121(b)(1), 481.134(f)(1) (West 2010 & Supp. 2011). handwritten a specific sentence twenty-five times per day for the period of January 11 to January 30, 2011. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations. The trial court found that he had violated the terms of his community supervision, found him guilty, and assessed a sentence of confinement for one year and a fine of two hundred dollars. 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 thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. 2 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 considered counsel s brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. We 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 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we affirm the trial court s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. 2 Any petition for Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and of the record. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief. 2 discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered May 31, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 3 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT MAY 31, 2012 NO. 12-11-00200-CR TONY LEEMARKA BATTLES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law #2 of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 002-83484-10) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted; and that this decision be certified to the trial court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. 4

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.