Opinion
06-23-00024-CR
12-28-2023
CLAYTON CORNELIUS REYNOLDS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted: December 27, 2023
On Appeal from the 8th District Court Delta County, Texas Trial Court No. 7883
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles Van Cleef, Justice.
A Delta County jury convicted Clayton Cornelius Reynolds of the third-degree-felony offense of possession of one gram or more but less than four grams of methamphetamine, and after his punishment range was enhanced as a habitual offender, the trial court sentenced him to ninety-nine years' imprisonment. Reynolds appeals.
Reynolds's appellate counsel filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On May 9, 2023, counsel mailed to Reynolds a copy of the brief, and on July 25, 2023, counsel mailed to Reynolds a copy of the appellate record. Counsel informed Reynolds of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. By order dated July 25, 2023, this Court notified Reynolds that his pro se response to counsel's brief was due on or before September 8, 2023. By letter dated September 26, 2023, we notified Reynolds that the case would be submitted on briefs on October 17, 2023. On October 5, 2023, this Court granted Reynolds, at his request, an extension of time in which to file his pro se response until November 6, 2023. On November 6, 2023, Reynolds filed his pro se response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and Reynolds's pro se response and have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court's judgment. Id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this 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. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.