Gregory Robert Leal v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 5, 2025
• Docket: 11-24-00145-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed June 5, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-24-00145-CR __________

GREGORY ROBERT LEAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court Howard County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16630

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Gregory Robert Leal, was charged by indictment with possession of methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than two-hundred grams, a second-degree felony. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.102(6), § 481.115(d) (West 2019). Following Appellant’s initial plea of not guilty and the presentation of evidence to the jury, Appellant changed his plea to guilty and proceeded with the penalty phase before the jury. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.14 (West Supp. 2024). The jury then assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for eleven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and a $2,500 fine. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44, Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12, and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The evidence presented prior to Appellant’s guilty plea established that law enforcement searched Appellant’s backpack incident to his arrest pursuant to a warrant and found 51.22 grams of methamphetamine. Appellant testified that he knew he was in possession of “a lot of methamphetamine” for his personal use—

2 despite its illegality, it was his “cup of tea.” He pleaded guilty the following day, and the jury assessed an eleven-year prison sentence and $2,500 fine. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.33 (West 2019) (statutory punishment range for a second- degree felony). Therefore, based on our independent review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

June 5, 2025 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of 1

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.