Joseph Lee Lopez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 24, 2006
• Docket: 12-05-00316-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                NO. 12-05-00316-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOSEPH LEE LOPEZ,        §                      APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Joseph Lee Lopez appeals his conviction for possession of between two hundred and four hundred grams of methamphetamine, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life.  Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  We affirm.

Background

            Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance, specifically between 200 and 400 grams of methamphetamine.  Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.  Following the presentation of evidence, the jury found Appellant guilty as charged and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for life.  The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s counsel states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  She further relates that she is well acquainted with the facts in this case.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.¹  We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

            As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered May 24, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ Counsel for Appellant certified in her motion to withdraw that she provided Appellant with a copy of this brief.  Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause.  The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.