11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Robert Ethan Maroon
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-02-00173-CR B Appeal from Palo Pinto County
State of Texas
Appellee
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of 4 grams or more but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. The jury convicted appellant and assessed his punishment at confinement for life. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he stated that he has conscientiously examined the record and the applicable law. Counsel stated that, after a diligent search, he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel reviewed the validity of the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, the jury selection process, the objections made by trial counsel, and the validity of the sentence. Counsel concluded that trial counsel=s performance exceeded the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. We agree that the appeal is without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
January 23, 2003 PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.