Jimmy Lloyd Brown v. State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed May 22, 2008

Opinion filed May 22, 2008

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-08-00061-CR

                                  JIMMY LLOYD BROWN, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 29th District Court

                                                       Palo Pinto County, Texas

                                                    Trial Court Cause No. 13588

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

The jury convicted Jimmy Lloyd Brown of possession of methamphetamine and assessed his punishment at confinement for two years in a state jail facility and a $10,000 fine.  We affirm.

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, No. AP-75,911, 2008 WL 1901389 (Tex. Crim. App. April 30, 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); 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 judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

May 22, 2008

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.