LEONARDO LEWIS BROWNING v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.

LEONARDO LEWIS BROWNING, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 08-16-00187-CR

Decided: October 27, 2016

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

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.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice