Reginald Deamon Berry v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00233-CR

REGINALD DEAMON BERRY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court
Hopkins County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2430477

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Reginald Deamon Berry pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance

(methamphetamine) in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams and pled true to

two enhancement paragraphs. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d) (Supp.);

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d). Following a bench trial, the trial court sentenced Berry to

life imprisonment. Berry now appeals his conviction.

Berry’s counsel filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely

arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. In the brief, counsel sets out the procedural

history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Counsel also

filed a motion seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

In the brief, counsel stated that he mailed Berry copies of all volumes of the reporter’s

record, a letter explaining the importance of the Anders brief and how Berry may pursue issues

moving forward, a copy of the brief, and a copy of the motion to withdraw. In the motion to

withdraw, counsel stated that he mailed Berry a letter outlining his right to file a pro se brief and

copies of the reporter’s record, the clerk’s record, and a letter confirming that counsel would be

filing an Anders brief and motion to withdraw. Those actions comply with an appointed

counsel’s responsibilities when filing an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw in accordance

with Kelly v. State. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Counsel’s professional evaluation of the record demonstrates why there are no arguable

grounds to be raised on appeal and meets the requirements of Anders v. California. See Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–20. After our review of

2
the entire appellate record, we have independently determined that “there are no non-frivolous

grounds for appeal.” Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318 n.16.

In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm

the trial court’s judgment. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

Jeff Rambin
Justice

Date Submitted: June 11, 2025
Date Decided: July 24, 2025

Do Not Publish

1
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, he 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.
3