Jorge Alberto Martinez v. State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed September 4, 2008

Opinion filed September 4, 2008

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-08-00139-CR

                                                    __________

                             JORGE ALBERTO MARTINEZ, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 70th District Court

                                                           Ector County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. A-26,407

                                             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.  The trial court convicted Jorge Alberto Martinez, upon his plea of guilty, of felony driving while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a $500 fine.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years.  After a hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement for seven years and a fine of $291.50.  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, 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); 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

September 4, 2008

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.