Freddrick Sharone Gage v. State ( 2007 )

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-07-00039-CR ______________________________



FREDDRICK SHARONE GAGE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 23,132

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Freddrick Sharone Gage appeals from his conviction of possession of marihuana in an amount of fifty pounds or less, but more than five pounds. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(a), (b)(4) (Vernon 2003). Gage entered an open plea of no contest and, after a hearing on punishment, was sentenced by the trial court to ten years' imprisonment. Gage was represented by appointed counsel at trial and by different appointed counsel on appeal.

Appellate counsel filed a brief July 25, 2007, under the mandate of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ex parte Senna, 606 S.W.2d 329, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), and has accordingly also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent Gage a copy of the brief and advised Gage by letter she believes there are no arguable contentions of error. She also informed Gage of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. Gage has not filed a response, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to file such a response.

Counsel has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, as required by High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). See also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel concluded from her review of the record there is no arguable point of error to support the appeal.

Counsel further states in the brief that the indictment is sufficient to support the conviction, that Gage's plea was voluntary, that Article 26.13 admonishments were given in writing (see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2006)), and that the sentence imposed was within the statutory range for the offense (see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.34 (Vernon 2003)). Counsel's statements are supported by the record.

We have reviewed the record and find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. We agree with counsel there are no arguable points of error in this case. ⁽¹⁾  

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: October 2, 2007

Date Decided: October 3, 2007

Do Not Publish

1.

Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Gage in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Gage wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Gage must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Gage must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.