Jerry Wayne Harper v. State

NO. 07-10-0509-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MAY 25, 2011
JERRY WAYNE HARPER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
___________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 60,695-E; HONORABLE DOUGLAS R. WOODBURN, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Jerry Wayne Harper (appellant) appeals his conviction for delivery of a controlled
substance. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders1 brief, wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she
concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel
filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated April
15, 2011, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by May
16, 2011, if he wished to do so. To date, appellant has failed to file a response.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed three potential areas for appeal. They included the 1) chain of custody
required for the admission of the drugs, 2) sufficiency of the evidence and 3) use of
extraneous offenses during punishment. However, counsel then proceeded to explain
why the issues were without merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with
counsel’s conclusions.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2
Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion.
2