Somer Jordan Wheat v. The State of TexasAppeal from 241st District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-13-00068-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS SOMER JORDAN WHEAT, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Somer Wheat appeals her conviction for possession of between four and two hundred grams of methamphetamine, for which she was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years. Appellant s counsel 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). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of between four and two hundred grams of methamphetamine and pleaded guilty. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on punishment. Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced her to imprisonment for fifteen years. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which she raised the following issues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction; (2) the statute under which she was charged contained vague terms, namely the terms adulterants and dilutants, that caused her to plead guilty ; (3) her sentence is improper because the scale upon which the range of punishment is determined improperly the inclusion of byproducts and the like in the definition of controlled substance ; and (4) she received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). CONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Appellant filed an objection to the motion, and we carried both the motion and the objection for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s objection is overruled, counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court s judgment is affirmed. As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant s 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 her of her 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 review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with 2 the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered January 31, 2014. 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 JANUARY 31, 2014 NO. 12-13-00068-CR SOMER JORDAN WHEAT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1168-12) 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 Appellant s counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith J., and Hoyle, J.
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.
