Rudolpho Lee Rocha v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 9, 2009
• Docket: 11-09-00061-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed July 9, 2009

Opinion filed July 9, 2009

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                  ___________

                                                          No. 11-09-00061-CR

                                           __________

                                 RUDOLPHO LEE ROCHA, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 106th District Court

                                                          Gaines County, Texas

                                                  Trial Court Cause No. 08-3871

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

The jury convicted Rudolpho Lee Rocha of arson and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a $10,000 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); 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 appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 9, 2009

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.