Maurice Samuel Arrington v. State

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 Jeff Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Puryear and Pemberton Affirmed Filed: March 5, 2015 Do Not Publish 2