Cornell Jackie Drummer v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00183-CR
Cornell Jackie DRUMMER,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1991CR1948A
Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 14, 2018
AFFIRMED
In June of 1992, Appellant Cornell Jackie Drummer was found guilty of murder and was
sentenced to ninety-nine years of imprisonment. He appealed his conviction. In May of 1993, this
Court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment. On January 17, 2018, Drummer filed
a pro se motion for DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,
along with a motion for appointment of counsel to assist in preparing for an evidentiary hearing of
the motion. On February 5, 2018, the trial court signed an order, finding that “there was sufficient
evidence and testimony that established Defendant’s identity, such that identity was not and is not
04-18-00183-CR
an issue in this case.” The trial court also found that no reasonable grounds for the motion existed.
Therefore, the trial court denied both motions filed by Drummer. On March 22, 2018, the trial
court appointed counsel to represent Drummer on appeal and certified that Drummer retained a
right to appeal.
Drummer’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal
authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review. Counsel
concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders
as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. Counsel states that Drummer was
provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw, and was further informed of his right to
review the record and file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014). Additionally, counsel advised Drummer that if he wished to review the record, he
must file a motion in this court and enclosed a form motion for that purpose. See id. Drummer filed
the motion in this Court and was mailed a copy of the record. Drummer then filed a pro se brief.
We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Drummer’s pro se brief. We agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Furthermore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Drummer wish to seek further review of
this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition
for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for
-2-
04-18-00183-CR
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this opinion;
or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
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.
Karen Angelini, Justice
Do not publish
-3-