In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00206-CR
GARY WAYNE FINLEY, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 100th District Court
Carson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 4384, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding
April 24, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Gary Wayne Finley, was charged by complaint and information1 with
the offense of possession of marijuana, in an amount of less than 50 pounds and more
than five pounds.2 Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, appellant entered a plea
of guilty to the charged offense. Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication
community supervision for a period of three years. The State subsequently filed a
1
The record reflects that appellant waived the requirement of a grand jury indictment.
2
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(a), (b)(4) (West 2010)
motion to adjudicate appellant’s offense. At the hearing on the State’s motion to
adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations. The court, after hearing
evidence regarding punishment, sentenced appellant to serve eight years’ confinement
in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant gave
notice of appeal. We will affirm.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,
there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he
has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and
appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also
advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a
response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support
an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See 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 have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous.
2
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.3
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
3
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
3