Nathaniel Norwood v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 29, 2009
• Docket: 01-07-00458-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 29, 2009

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-07-00411-CR

NO. 01-07-00458-CR

---

NATHANIEL NORWOOD, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 344th District Court

Chambers County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 12933 & 13421

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          In a bench trial, the trial court convicted appellant, Nathaniel Norwood, of unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely cocaine, in an amount of 400 grams or more and bail jumping. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (Vernon 2003) and Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.10 (Vernon 2003). The trial court assessed punishment at 15 years in prison and a $5,000 fine for unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and eight years in prison and a $1,000 fine for bail jumping and failure to appear. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief.

Facts

          At approximately 11:30 p.m. on September 10, 2003, appellant, appellant’s twin brother, Nathan, and another man were pulled over on Interstate 10 in Chambers County for failure to properly display a license plate. The officer, Trooper Jason Taylor, asked for and obtained consent to search the vehicle from appellant, who was driving, and appellant’s brother. Trooper Taylor and Cleveland Police Officer Kevin Cook searched the vehicle and found cocaine within the rear door panels.

          Appellant was ordered to appear in court in Chambers County on February 2, 2005. He was convicted for failing to appear.

Analysis

          Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief stating his belief that the appeal is without merit and frivolous and has moved to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant has filed a pro se brief.

          A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed. Upon reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Onofre v. State, 193 S.W.3d 148, 149 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). We have reviewed the entire appellate record. We conclude that there is no reversible error and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Id.

Conclusion

          We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

                                                             George C. Hanks

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Hanks, and Bland.

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).