Walter Chad Brannon v. State, No. 03-16-00547-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 7, 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Walter Chad Brannon v. State, No. 03-16-00547-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 7, 2017). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Walter Chad Brannon
v.
State
03-16-00547-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Apr 7, 2017.
Unpublished opinion
Published
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00547-CR

Walter Chad Brannon, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. B-15-0755-SA, HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Walter Chad Brannon was convicted by a jury of the offense of possession of more than one gram but less than four grams of methamphetamine, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(c). Appellant was also found by the trial court to have prior felony convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a controlled substance, which enhanced the punishment to habitual offender status. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(d). The court then sentenced appellant to 35 years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant filed a pro se brief.

We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. 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). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.[1] __________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: April 7, 2017 Do Not Publish

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of his case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7.