












COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH





NO. 2-05-274-CR





ROBERT LOUIS REDDELL	APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE



------------



FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY



------------



MEMORANDUM OPINION
(footnote: 1)


------------

Appellant Robert Louis Reddell appeals from a conviction for possession of methamphetamine in the amount of more than one but less than four grams.  A jury convicted him and, upon his plea of true to an enhancement paragraph, assessed his punishment at fifteen years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The trial court sentenced him accordingly.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In his brief, counsel has reviewed the history of the case, including detailing the evidence presented. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of 
Anders v. California
(footnote: 2) by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal.
(footnote: 3)  Appellant has also filed a pro se brief, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the methamphetamine evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, and that the prosecutor engaged in improper argument at punishment. 

In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.
(footnote: 4)  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
(footnote: 5)  We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se brief.  We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
(footnote: 6)  Therefore, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Appellant’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment.



PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

WALKER, J. concurs without opinion.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P.
 47.2(b)



DELIVERED:  November 30, 2006

FOOTNOTES
1:See
 
Tex. R. App. P.
 47.4.


2:386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).


3:See Mays v. State
, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).


4:See Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); 
Mays
, 904 S.W.2d at 923.


5:See Penson v. Ohio
, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).


6:See Bledsoe v. State
, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).


