Olan Floyd Boatwright v. State of Texas ( 2009 )

Opinion filed December 17, 2009

Opinion filed December 17, 2009

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                  ___________

                                                          No. 11-09-00255-CR

                                                    __________

                             OLAN FLOYD BOATWRIGHT, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                        On Appeal from the 142nd District Court

                                                        Midland County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. CR32497

                                              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.  We dismiss.

Olan Floyd Boatwright originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault.  The trial court convicted appellant and assessed a punishment of confinement for ten years.  However, the imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for ten years.  At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision.  The trial court found that the allegations were true, revoked his community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement for eight years.

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.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

December 17, 2009

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.