NOS. 12-06-00228-CR
12-06-00229-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
DAVID VARNER, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
David Varner appeals his conviction for possession of a prohibited substance in a correctional facility, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. Appellant also appeals his conviction for possession of between one and four grams of methamphetamine, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. 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
Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance, specifically between one and four grams of methamphetamine. Appellant was also charged by indictment with possession of a prohibited substance in a correctional facility. Appellant pleaded guilty as charged to each offense, and the matter proceeded to a trial on punishment. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for eight years for each offense. This appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects 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 this case. 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 case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record 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 our consideration of this matter. 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 judgment is affirmed.
Opinion delivered June 29, 2007.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1 Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.