Osborn Gerard Nelson v. State

Summarize Case

Related Cases

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-06-495 CR

____________________



OSBORN GERARD NELSON, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 96722



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Osborn Gerard Nelson appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c) (Vernon 2003). Appellate counsel filed a brief concluding the record revealed no reversible error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Nelson filed a pro se response brief presenting two issues for review. The State filed a brief contending Nelson's pro se issues lack merit. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error"; or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id.

After careful review of the entire record, the briefs of appellate counsel and the State, along with the pro se brief of appellant, we find no arguable error. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. Appointment of new counsel is not required. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant is free to file a petition for discretionary review raising error by this Court in the instant appeal. (1) We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice



Submitted on September 27, 2007

Opinion Delivered February 13, 2008

Do not publish



Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1. However, "[w]hile an appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review with [the Court of Criminal Appeals], review is not a matter of right." Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 n.6. (citing Tex. R. App. P. 66.2).