Valton Elsworth Registe v. State of Texas
This text of Valton Elsworth Registe v. State of Texas (Valton Elsworth Registe v. State of Texas) 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.
Opinion
NO. 07-00-0579-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 27, 2001
______________________________
VALTON ELSWORTH REGISTE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 262nd DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;
NO. 850988; HONORABLE MIKE ANDERSON, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
Appellant Valton Elsworth Registe appeals from his conviction for possession of
marijuana in a usable quantity of more than five pounds and less than 50 pounds. We
affirm.
Pursuant to a plea bargain, on November 14, 2000, appellant entered a plea of
guilty to a charge of possession of marijuana of over five pounds and under 50 pounds.
The trial court found that the evidence substantiated appellant’s guilt, accepted the guilty plea, and sentenced appellant to two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant, acting pro se, filed a general notice of appeal
on November 27, 2000. On December 14, 2000, appellant filed a second pro se Notice
of Appeal in which he asserted that he desired to appeal all issues in his case, including
those presented by written motions ruled on before trial, jurisdictional issues, and issues
affecting the voluntariness of his plea.
Counsel for appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a Brief in Support thereof.
In support of the motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that, in compliance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the record has
been diligently reviewed and that in the opinion of counsel, the record reflects no
reversible error or grounds upon which an arguably meritorious appeal can be predicated.
Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is without merit. Counsel has discussed why,
under the controlling authorities, there is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings
or judgment. High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Counsel has attached exhibits showing that a copy of the Anders brief and Motion
to Withdraw have been forwarded to appellant, and that counsel has appropriately advised
appellant of appellant’s right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s motion
and brief. Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s motion and brief.
We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether
there are any arguable grounds meriting appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109
2 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.
1991). We note, as does counsel for appellant, that appellant waived the making of a
record of his plea proceedings. Although a written Motion to Suppress was filed pretrial,
the motion was not heard or ruled on insofar as the record before us shows. The record
reflects no affidavit, assertion or other evidence that appellant’s plea was not voluntary as
was found by the trial court and as reflected by the clerk’s record. We, like counsel for
appellant, have found no arguable grounds meriting an appeal. We agree that the appeal
is without merit.
Accordingly, counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is granted. The judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Phil Johnson Justice
Do not publish.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Valton Elsworth Registe v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valton-elsworth-registe-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2001.