Leonard Buckley v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 6, 2006
• Docket: 12-06-00049-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                                NO. 12-06-00049-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LEONARD BUCKLEY,       §                      APPEAL FROM THE 273RD

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Leonard Buckley appeals his conviction for delivery of between one and four grams of phencyclidine, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for forty years.  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 with  delivery of between one and four grams of phencyclidine.  The indictment further contained an allegation that Appellant was previously convicted of first degree delivery of a controlled substance.  Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged, and a hearing on punishment was conducted.  Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant “guilty,” found the enhancement allegation in the indictment to be true, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for forty years.  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 he 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.  He further relates that he 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 with our consideration of this matter.  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 September 6, 2006.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he 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.