|
|
|
|
Opinion filed April 12, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-06-00289-CR
__________
TODIS BERNARD LAMPLEY, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR31547
O P I N I O N
The jury convicted Todis Bernard Lampley of theft by repetition and assessed his punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for one and one-half years and a $5,000 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. Two responses have 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.).
In his responses, appellant attacks the credibility of the prosecutor and the witnesses, challenges the motives of his appellate counsel, and requests the Aphysical [appearance] of eyewitnesses@ in this court. The record does not support appellant=s contentions that there was Afalsification as to the fa[tal] facts of the case,@ that his counsel is guilty of neglect, or that he has been provided ineffective assistance of counsel. In fact, the record before this court reflects that appellant has been provided with reasonably effective assistance of counsel at all stages of this proceeding. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Review in this court is limited to the appellate record. All of appellant=s arguments have been considered, and each is overruled.
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 66. Black v. State, No. 11-06-00273-CR, 2007 WL 431005 (Tex. App.CEastland, Feb. 8, 2007, no pet.).
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
April 12, 2007
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.