Paul Wilson v. State ( 2004 )

                                                                                    NO. 12-03-00355-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

PAUL LADRO WILSON,                                  §                 APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V.                                                                         §                 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE                                                        §                 SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Appellant Paul Ladro Wilson was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment. Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief, stating that the record does not present any meritorious points for appeal, and Appellant has not filed a brief pro se. We affirm.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), stating that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. She further relates that she is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

            As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered November 30, 2004.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)