|
|
|
|
Opinion filed December 17, 2009
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________
No. 11-09-00255-CR
__________
OLAN FLOYD BOATWRIGHT, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR32497
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. We dismiss.
Olan Floyd Boatwright originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault. The trial court convicted appellant and assessed a punishment of confinement for ten years. However, the imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for ten years. At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that the allegations were true, revoked his community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement for eight years.
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, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 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); and 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, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.).
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
December 17, 2009
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.