
NO. 07-05-0333-CR



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL A



AUGUST 28, 2006

______________________________



LOUIS DELL BUTLER, APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________



FROM THE 108
TH
 DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;



NO. 49,970-E; HONORABLE RICHARD DAMBOLD, JUDGE

_______________________________





Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Louis Dell Butler, appeals his conviction for possession of marihuana and sentence of fifteen years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and $7,000 fine.  Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with 
Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and 
Gainous v. State
, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969).  We affirm.

Appellant’s counsel, in compliance with 
Anders
 and 
Gainous
, states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated.  Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and discusses why, under the controlling authorities, there is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings and judgment.  
See
 
High v. State
, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

Counsel has attached an exhibit showing that a copy of the 
Anders
 brief and motion to withdraw have been forwarded to appellant and that counsel has provided appellant a copy of the record for his review and has advised him of his right to file a 
pro se 
response to counsel’s motion and brief.  The clerk of this court has also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.  Appellant has not filed a response.

We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous grounds upon which an appeal could arguably be founded.  
See
 
Penson v. Ohio
, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); 
Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  We have found no such grounds.

Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  
See
 
Johnson v. State
, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, writ ref’d).  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal.  Having considered the merits and finding no reversible error, appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

Do not publish.   			

