Cory Doniel Young v. State

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-07-00029-CR ______________________________ CORY DONIEL YOUNG, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 22,632 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Cory Doniel Young appeals his conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine) in an amount of 400 grams or more. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(f) (Vernon 2003). Young waived a jury trial and entered an open plea of guilty and a plea of "true" to a prior felony conviction. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court sentenced Young to twenty-five years' imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2006). Young was represented by retained counsel at trial and by different, appointed, counsel on appeal. Appellate counsel filed a brief June 21, 2007, under the mandate of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ex parte Senna, 606 S.W.2d 329, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), and has accordingly also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent Young a copy of the brief and advised Young by letter that counsel believes there are no arguable contentions of error. He also informed Young of the right to review the record and file a pro se response. Young has not filed a response, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to file such a response. Counsel has filed a brief that discusses the record and reviews the proceedings. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, as required by High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). See also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel concluded from his review of the record that there are no arguable points of error to support the appeal. Counsel further states in the brief that Young waived many of his constitutional rights, that Young was admonished by the trial court orally and in writing of the range of punishment, and that Young was aware there was no plea agreement and the trial court would decide his sentence. Counsel's statements are supported by the record. We have, likewise, independently reviewed the record and agree with counsel that there are no arguable points of error in this case. (1) We affirm the trial court's judgment. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: August 27, 2007 Date Decided: September 4, 2007 Do Not Publish 1. Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Young in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Young wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Young 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 must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.