|
|
|
|
Opinion filed January 7, 2010
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________
No. 11-09-00251-CR
__________
LANCE ALAN LISTER, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 244th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C-34,391
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.
The trial court convicted Lance Alan Lister, upon his plea of guilty, of theft and assessed his punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for two years and a $500 fine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for five years. At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to three of the State=s five allegations. The trial court found all five allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement for two years in a state jail facility and a $360 fine.
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 counsel 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
January 7, 2010
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.