|
|
|
|
Opinion filed May 18, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-05-00325-CR
__________
ERIC RODERIC COHEN A/K/A ERIC RODERICK COHEN, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 29th District Court
Palo Pinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 12,667
O P I N I O N
Eric Roderic Cohen a/k/a Eric Roderick Cohen entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of methamphetamine and a plea of true to the enhancement allegation. The jury convicted appellant and assessed his punishment at confinement for thirty years and a $3,500 fine. 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 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 appellant=s pro se response, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
May 18, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.