Derreck Cowley v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 10, 2012
• Docket: 07-11-00391-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-11-0391-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JANUARY 10, 2012 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DERRECK COWLEY,

Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee ___________________________

FROM THE 106[TH] DISTRICT COURT OF GARZA COUNTY;

NO. 10-2562; HONORABLE CARTER T. SCHILDKNECHT, PRESIDING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Memorandum Opinion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Derreck Cowley (appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. After his motion to suppress was denied, he pled guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel's belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to file a response pro se. By letter dated December 5, 2011, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by January 4, 2012, if he wished to do so. To date, a response has not been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed one potential area for appeal which included the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issue was without merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with counsel's conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.