David Wayne Lee v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

David Wayne Lee v. State

DecidedSeptember 14, 2006

Docket14-05-00620-CR

StatusPublished

This text of David Wayne Lee v. State (David Wayne Lee v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Wayne Lee v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 27, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 27, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00620-CR

DAVID WAYNE LEE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1012710

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense of possession of cocaine and was sentenced on June 1, 2005, to confinement for 25 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). On March 17, 2006, appellant filed a pro se response to the brief filed by counsel. In the response, appellant raises five issues.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, and the issues raised in the pro se response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 27, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Edelman, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI