Bobby LeWayne Thomas v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 20, 2006
• Docket: 07-05-00295-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-05-0295-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JUNE 20, 2006

______________________________

BOBBY LEWAYNE THOMAS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 46TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARDEMAN COUNTY;

NO. 3876; HONORABLE TOM NEELY, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a plea of not guilty, appellant Bobby Lewayne Thomas  was convicted of manufacturing of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, and sentenced to 25 years confinement.  In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders ^{(footnote: 1)} brief in support of a motion to withdraw.  We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment.  Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit.  In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so.  Appellant subsequently filed a response.  The State did not favor us with a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises multiple grounds that he believes could plausibly support an appeal.   We have reviewed these grounds in addition to the grounds raised by appellant.  We have also made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any other arguable grounds which might support an appeal.   See  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005).  We have found no reversible grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Don H. Reavis

   Justice

Do not publish.

FOOTNOTES

1:

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).