Christopher William Barrett v. State of Texas ( 2008 )

Opinion filed June 12, 2008

Opinion filed June 12, 2008

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-08-00043-CR

                                                    __________

                       CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM BARRETT, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 266th District Court

                                                           Erath County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. CR12805

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

The jury convicted Christopher William Barrett of indecency with a child and assessed his punishment at confinement for five years and a $1,500 fine. Following the jury=s recommendation, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years.  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 she 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. Apr. 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

June 12, 2008

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.