Leonardo Lewis Browning v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§
LEONARDO LEWIS BROWNING, No. 08-16-00187-CR
§
Appellant, Appeal from
§
v. 426th District Court
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Bell County, Texas
§
Appellee. (TC # 74768)
§
OPINION
Leonardo Lewis Browning appeals his conviction of possession of more than one gram
but less than four grams of methamphetamine. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and
entered an open plea of guilty. The court found Appellant guilty, assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for a term of six years and a fine of $750, but the court suspended the sentence and
placed Appellant on community supervision for five years. We affirm.
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)(“In Texas, an
Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it
must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.”); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the
Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel’s brief and the motion to withdraw to
Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and
to seek discretionary review. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 (Tex.Crim.App.
2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). Appellant has been provided access to the appellate
record and he has filed a pro se brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se brief, and
agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the
record that might arguably support the appeal. A further discussion of the issues advanced in
Appellant’s pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment of the
trial court is affirmed. All pending motions are denied as moot.
October 27, 2016
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
-2-