|
|
|
|
Opinion filed March 22, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-06-00339-CR
__________
CELSO DURAN JUAREZ, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 161st District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. B-29,659
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. Celso Duran Juarez originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of cocaine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of appellant=s guilt, placed him on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. After a hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for ten years and a $1,000 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. 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.).
Appellant has filed an original application for a writ of habeas corpus from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005). This court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief under Article 11.07. In the interest of justice, we are this date retaining copies of appellant=s application and returning the original application to appellant.
In his application, appellant challenges the effectiveness of his trial counsel. The record before this court does not support appellant=s claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. 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). Appellant=s contentions are 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. h.).
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
March 22, 2007
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.