Jesse Nunez Torres v. State

Opinion filed February 15, 2007

 

 

Opinion filed February 15, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        In The

                                                                             

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

 

                                                          No. 11-06-00156-CR

                                                    __________

 

                                 JESSE NUNEZ TORRES, Appellant

 

                                                             V.

 

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

                                         On Appeal from the 118th District Court

 

                                                         Howard County, Texas

 

                                                    Trial Court Cause No. 11567

 

 

                                                                   O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Jesse Nunez Torres of aggravated robbery.  Appellant entered pleas of true to both enhancement allegations.  The jury assessed his punishment at confinement for life.  We modify and 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.  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.  The judgment is modified to reflect that appellant entered pleas of true to the enhancement allegations and, as modified, is affirmed.

 

PER CURIAM

 

February 15, 2007

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.