Ramon Hughes Lerma v. State of Texas

Opinion filed May 10, 2012

 

                                                                       In The

                                                                             

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

 

                                                         No. 11-11-00337-CR

                                                    __________

 

                             RAMON HUGHES LERMA, Appellant

 

                                                             V.

 

                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

                                    On Appeal from the 39th District Court

 

                                                           Haskell County, Texas

 

                                                       Trial Court Cause No. 6461

 

 

M E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N

Ramon Hughes Lerma pleaded guilty to the offense of “manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance” to-wit:  cocaine, in an amount in excess of four grams but less than two hundred grams.  In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of twenty years.  We dismiss the appeal.

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.[1]  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.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.  Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court.  Tex. R. App. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”).  Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

 

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

           

May 10, 2012

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.



[1]By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.