
NO. 07-07-0398-CR



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL B



JANUARY 11, 2008

______________________________



ADRIAN MAURICE THOMAS, 



Appellant



v.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, 



Appellee

_________________________________



FROM THE 47
TH
 DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;



NO. 52,883-A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_______________________________



Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________



Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Adrian Maurice Thomas appeals his conviction for possessing a controlled substance, namely cocaine.  His appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an 
Anders
(footnote: 1) brief wherein he certified that after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal is without merit.  Counsel has also attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief and of appellant’s right to file his own brief or response 
pro se.  
By letter dated December 4, 2007, this court  notified appellant of the same right and set January 3, 2008, as the deadline to respond.  To date, appellant has filed neither a response, brief, nor request for an extension of time.  

In compliance with the principles of 
Anders
, appellate counsel discussed three potential areas for appeal.  They involved 1) the sufficiency of the evidence, 2) the effectiveness of trial counsel, and 3) the measure of punishment assessed.  Counsel then explained why each argument lacked merit. 

We also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error pursuant to 
Stafford v. State, 
813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  That review failed to reveal any reversible error.  

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.



Brian Quinn 

          Chief Justice



Do not publish.  

FOOTNOTES
1:Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).


