TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00066-CR
Maurice Samuel Arrington, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 69198, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant Maurice Samuel Arrington guilty of possession with intent
to deliver a controlled substance weighing four grams or more but less than 200 grams. Punishment
was assessed at thirty-five years in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. We will affirm the judgment.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw
supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets
the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds on the merits to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738,
744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988). Appellant himself filed a pro se brief raising fourteen issues containing an array
of complaints including errors in admitting and excluding evidence, prosecutorial misconduct,
ineffective assistance of counsel, and judicial bias.
We have reviewed the record, including the appellate briefs filed by counsel and
appellant pro se. We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds
for review and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766;
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction
is affirmed. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).
Jeff Rose, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Puryear and Pemberton
Affirmed
Filed: March 5, 2015
Do Not Publish
2