Melvin L. Saylor, Jr. v. State of Texas

Opinion filed May 15, 2008

 

 

Opinion filed May 15, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        In The

                                                                             

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                    _________

 

                                                          No. 11-08-00028-CR

                                                      ________

 

                                 MELVIN L. SAYLOR, JR., Appellant

 

                                                             V.

 

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

                                        On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

 

                                                       Jefferson County, Texas

 

                                                    Trial Court Cause No. 99245

 

 

                                             M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted Melvin L. Saylor, Jr., upon his plea of guilty, of possession of cocaine.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for fifteen 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); In re Schulman, No. AP-75,911, 2008 WL 1901389 (Tex. Crim. App. April 30, 2008); 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. State217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.).

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

 

PER CURIAM

 

May 15, 2008

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.