In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00435-CR
MARK DEWAYNE HALLCY, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. B18779-1104, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding
July 22, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant Mark Dewayne Hallcy plead guilty in an open plea proceeding to the
state jail felony offense of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance.1
He appealed his conviction. His attorney has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Agreeing with appointed counsel's conclusion the
1
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(b) (West 2013).
record fails to show any arguably meritorious issue that could support the appeal, we
affirm the trial court's judgment.
In April 2011, appellant was indicted for the state jail felony offense of possession
of a controlled substance in the amount of less than one gram, and in November 2013,
he plead guilty to the trial court. The trial court admonished appellant, ensured his plea
was entered knowingly, freely, and voluntarily, and explained the range of punishment.
After appellant entered his plea of guilty, a jury was impaneled to determine
punishment. The State introduced, without objection, written plea papers that included a
stipulation of evidence, a judicial confession and waiver of jury trial as to guilt-
innocence, each bearing appellant’s signature. The State also introduced evidence of
appellant’s prior felony convictions.
Appellant testified on his own behalf. He told the jury about his previous felony
convictions, his receipt of his GED in prison and his successful completion of his parole
after release. Appellant also testified he obtained his commercial driver’s license and
began work as a truck driver. Appellant further testified to his recent work history and
his battle with depression following the death of his brother. He agreed with his counsel
that he used the controlled substance to help him cope with his brother’s death.
Following this testimony and argument of counsel, the jury assessed punishment
against appellant at confinement in a state jail facility for a period of one year and
imposed against him a fine of $2500. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal.
2
Thereafter, appellant's appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw
and a brief in support pursuant to Anders in which he certifies that he has diligently
reviewed the record and, in his professional opinion, under the controlling authorities
and facts of this case, there is no reversible error or legitimate grounds on which a non-
frivolous appeal arguably can be predicated. The brief discusses the procedural history
of the case, appellant's plea of guilty, and the hearing before the jury concerning
appellant's punishment. Counsel has certified that a copy of the Anders brief and motion
to withdraw have been served on appellant, and that counsel has advised appellant of
his right to review the record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, No. PD-
0702-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 911 (June 25, 2014); Johnson v. State, 885
S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref'd). By letter, this Court also notified
appellant of his opportunity to submit a response to the Anders brief and motion to
withdraw filed by his counsel. Appellant filed a response and we have considered it in
our review.
In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we
will not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record.
Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If this
Court determines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for
appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App.1991).
Our review convinces us that appellate counsel conducted a complete review of
the record. We have also made an independent examination of the entire record,
including appellant’s response, to determine whether there are any arguable grounds
3
which might support the appeal. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102
L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We
agree it presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review. Accordingly, we grant
counsel's motion to withdraw2 and affirm the judgment of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P.
43.2(b).
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file a pro se petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
4