|
|
|
|
Opinion filed November 5, 2009
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________
No. 11-09-00028-CR
__________
RODNEY WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1115808R
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The trial court convicted Rodney Williams, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary of a habitation. A plea bargain agreement was not entered. The trial court found the enhancement allegation to be true and assessed punishment at confinement for fifty-five years. We dismiss.
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 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.).
In his response, appellant argues that there is no evidence linking him to the burglary and that there were no eyewitnesses to the offense. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated in Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), that the court of appeals is to review appellant=s pro se claims and examine the record in order to determine whether the record reflects no reversible error and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed or whether arguable grounds exist and, therefore, new counsel should be appointed. We have complied with the requirements in Bledsoe and have found no reversible error.
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
November 5, 2009
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.