NOS. 12-03-00149-CR
12-03-00150-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
EMMETT LEE COOK,§ APPEAL FROM THE THIRD
APPELLANT
V.§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE§ ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Emmett Lee Cook appeals his convictions for delivery of a controlled substance. For delivery of cocaine, he was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. For delivery of methamphetamine, he was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
Background
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement in trial court cause number 25510, Appellant pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine. He received a sentence of ten years of imprisonment, probated for ten years, and a $3,000.00 fine. At the same time, also pursuant to a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to delivery of methamphetamine in trial court cause number 25509. The trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty of this offense and placed Appellant on deferred adjudication probation for ten years and assessed a $2,500.00 fine. Two years later, the State filed a motion to revoke probation in cause number 25510 and a motion to proceed with adjudication in cause number 25509. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the motions. The State proved that Appellant was behind in paying his fees and court costs and in performing community service. In cause number 25510, the trial court revoked Appellant's probation and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. In cause number 25509, the trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate records and is of the opinion that the records reflect no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in these cases. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the cases, and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. (1) We have likewise reviewed the records for reversible error and have found none.
Conclusion
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court's judgments are affirmed.
Opinion delivered March 10, 2004.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1.