Eric Fitzgerald Mayberry v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 8, 2010
Docket03-10-00437-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Eric Fitzgerald Mayberry v. State (Eric Fitzgerald Mayberry 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
Eric Fitzgerald Mayberry v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN





NO. 03-10-00437-CR




Eric Fitzgerald Mayberry, Appellant


v.


The State of Texas, Appellee





FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR22340, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING




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

A jury found appellant Eric Fitzgerald Mayberry guilty of possessing more than one but less than four grams of cocaine with intent to deliver. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (c) (West 2010). The court assessed punishment, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at twenty years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

                                                ___________________________________________

                                                Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: December 8, 2010

Do Not Publish

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Garner v. State
300 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eric Fitzgerald Mayberry v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-fitzgerald-mayberry-v-state-texapp-2010.