Kourtney Johmar Anthony v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00221-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KOURTNEY JOHMAR ANTHONY, § APPEAL FROM THE 420TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Kourtney Johmar Anthony appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled
substance. 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 four or more but less than 200
grams of methamphetamine. 1 Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a
bench trial.
At trial, the evidence showed that officers with the Nacogdoches Police Department
responded to a criminal trespass call against Appellant. After the officers contacted and
identified Appellant, dispatchers informed them that he had an outstanding warrant for

1
A second-degree felony punishable by imprisonment for a term not more than twenty or less than two
years, and a possible fine not to exceed $10,000.00. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6) (West
Supp. 2023); 481.115(a), (d) (West Supp. 2023); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.33 (West 2019).
possession of a controlled substance. A subsequent search of Appellant’s person incident to his
arrest on the warrant revealed multiple controlled substances, including one later determined to
be 4.30 grams of methamphetamine.
The trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and ordered a presentence
investigation report. After a bench trial on punishment, the court assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for a term of eleven years. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he carefully examined the record and found no error that
could support an appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 2 We conducted an
independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible error. See id. We conclude
that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for
consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant
counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a
copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must
either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed

2
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

2
within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for
rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 3, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 3, 2024

NO. 12-23-00221-CR

KOURTNEY JOHMAR ANTHONY,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 420th District Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F2125451)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the
judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the
court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.