Randall Paul Hathcock v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 3, 2009
• Docket: 11-09-00180-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed December 3, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-09-00180-CR __________

RANDALL PAUL HATHCOCK, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 220th District Court

Comanche County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CCCR-07-02973

MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court convicted Randall Paul Hathcock, upon his plea of guilty, of possession of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty-five years and a $1,000 fine. 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

December 3, 2009 Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP . P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.