|
|
|
|
Opinion filed August 13, 2009
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________
No. 11-09-00019-CR
__________
JONATHAN S. GRAY, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1024754D
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. We dismiss the appeal.
Jonathan S. Gray originally entered a plea of guilty to the fraudulent possession of Xanax, a controlled substance or prescription. The trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for three years. A fine of $300 was also imposed. At the hearing on the State=s second motion to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas to three of the State=s allegations. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and assessed his punishment at confinement for seven 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 she 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
August 13, 2009
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.