|
|
|
|
Opinion filed June 29, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-05-00372-CR
__________
JAIME ABASCAL, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 299th District Court
Travis County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. D-1-DC-2005-904068
O P I N I O N
The jury convicted Jaime Abascal of aggravated kidnapping, found the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed punishment at confinement for seventeen years. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
June 29, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.