Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021

Wallace Murray Hadley v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided July 20, 2021

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-20-00117-CR WALLACE MURRAY HADLEY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court

Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. F15178

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Wallace Murray Hadley pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount less than one gram1 and pled true to two enhancement paragraphs that alleged two prior state jail felony convictions. After the State offered evidence supporting the allegations, the trial court found Hadley guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. While the trial court had plenary jurisdiction, it convened a second hearing in which it found the enhancement paragraphs true. Hadley appeals his conviction and sentence.

Hadley’s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Hadley’s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Hadley with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. His counsel also informed Hadley of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response and provided Hadley with a copy of the record. On June 21, 2021, Hadley filed a pro se response to the Anders brief that did not assert any reversible trial court error.

We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

Scott E. Stevens Justice

Date Submitted: July 12, 2021 Date Decided: July 20, 2021 Do Not Publish

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b). 2 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.