

                                                NO.
12-05-00296-CR
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
TYLER, TEXAS
MARK MARSHALL,            §          APPEAL
FROM THE 145TH
APPELLANT
 
V.        §          JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE   §          NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                                                                                                                            
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
            Mark
Marshall appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with
intent to deliver, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten
years.  Appellant’s counsel filed a brief
in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d
137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  We affirm.
                                                
Background
            Appellant
was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance,
specifically between 200 and 400 grams of methamphetamine, with intent to
deliver.  Appellant pleaded guilty as
charged, and a trial on punishment was conducted.  Ultimately, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to imprisonment for ten years. 
This appeal followed.
 
Analysis
Pursuant to Anders v. California
            Appellant’s
counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v.
State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s counsel
states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error
upon which an appeal can be predicated. 
He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this
case.  In compliance with Anders,
Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the
procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is
unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1  We have likewise reviewed the record for
reversible error and have found none.
                                                                                                            
Conclusion
            As
required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion for consideration with
our consideration of this matter.  Having
done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
 
 
 
Opinion
delivered March 22, 2006.
Panel
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)




1 Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion
to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief.  Appellant was given time to file his own
brief in this cause.  The time for filing
such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.


