Alvin Leon Gaines v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 18, 2010
• Docket: 11-10-00008-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed November 18, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-10-00008-CR __________

ALVIN LEON GAINES, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR20097

MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Alvin Leon Gaines of delivery of less than one gram of cocaine in a drug free zone. The jury found both enhancement allegations to be true and assessed punishment at confinement for twenty 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.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In his response, appellant contends that his constitutional rights have been violated because he entered a plea of not guilty. We have considered the arguments in appellant’s response, examined the record, and have found no reversible error. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403. 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.—Eastland 2007, no pet.). The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

November 18, 2010 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.