Whaley, Verne Lee v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 27, 2005
Docket14-04-00835-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Whaley, Verne Lee v. State (Whaley, Verne Lee v. State) 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.

Bluebook
Whaley, Verne Lee v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 27, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 27, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00835-CR

VERNE LEE WHALEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 971,369

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of manufacture or delivery of less than one gram of cocaine.  The trial court sentenced appellant, in accordance with the jury=s recommendation, to confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and assessed a $10,000 fine.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 


Appellant retained counsel to represent him on appeal.  Counsel filed a motion to withdraw from her representation of appellant because, after reviewing the record, she concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, purportedly under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967).  The Anders procedural safeguards are not applicable, however, to an appellant who is represented by a retained attorney.  See Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d 376, 379 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). 

This court granted counsel=s motion to withdraw, and ordered that appellant had thirty days to file a pro se brief or to obtain new counsel to file a brief on his behalf.  More than thirty days have elapsed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief, had an attorney file a brief on his behalf, or responded to this court=s order.  Accordingly, we review this case without the benefit of briefs.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and agree with appellant=s former appellate attorney that the appeal lacks merit.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.  See Nguyen, 11 S.W. 3d at 379-80.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 27, 2005.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Seymore.

Do not publish C Tex.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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Nguyen v. State
11 S.W.3d 376 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Whaley, Verne Lee v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whaley-verne-lee-v-state-texapp-2005.