NO. 07-05-0333-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
AUGUST 28, 2006
______________________________
LOUIS DELL BUTLER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 49,970-E; HONORABLE RICHARD DAMBOLD, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Louis Dell Butler, appeals his conviction for possession of marihuana and
sentence of fifteen years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice and $7,000 fine. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). We affirm.
Appellant’s counsel, in compliance with Anders and Gainous, states that she has
diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no
reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated. Counsel thus concludes
that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the
procedural history of the case and discusses why, under the controlling authorities, there
is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings and judgment. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Counsel has attached an exhibit showing that a copy of the Anders brief and motion
to withdraw have been forwarded to appellant and that counsel has provided appellant a
copy of the record for his review and has advised him of his right to file a pro se response
to counsel’s motion and brief. The clerk of this court has also advised appellant by letter
of his right to file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a response.
We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether
there are any non-frivolous grounds upon which an appeal could arguably be founded. See
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds.
Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Johnson v. State, 885
S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, writ ref’d). We carried the motion for
consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having considered the merits and finding no
reversible error, appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2