Clifford Ward Futch v. State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed November 18, 2010

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-10-00107-CR

                             CLIFFORD WARD FUTCH, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                    On Appeal from the 2nd District Court

                                                         Cherokee County, Texas

                                                      Trial Court Cause No. 17488

                                            M E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N

            The jury convicted Clifford Ward Futch of evading arrest with a vehicle, found both enhancement allegations to be true, and assessed his punishment at confinement for sixteen 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 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.—Eastland 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.—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.