William Christopher Lloyd v. State

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00461-CR

William Christopher Lloyd, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 68452, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant

William Christopher Lloyd pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance,

methamphetamine, in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. Punishment was

assessed at seven years’ imprisonment.

Lloyd’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of

Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there

are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d

684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous

v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Lloyd was mailed a copy of counsel’s brief and advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has

been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field

Affirmed

Filed: February 5, 2014

Do Not Publish