Terrance Scott Anderson v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 25, 2010
• Docket: 11-09-00234-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed February 25, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-09-00234-CR __________

TERRANCE SCOTT ANDERSON, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 142nd District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR31582

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. We dismiss the appeal. The trial court originally convicted Terrance Scott Anderson of retaliation and assessed his punishment at confinement for 5 years and a $1,500 fine. The imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for five years. After a hearing on the State’s third amended motion to revoke, the trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence. 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

February 25, 2010 Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP . P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.