Robert Keith Brooks v. State of Texas ( 2009 )

Opinion filed November 19, 2009

Opinion filed November 19, 2009

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                  ___________

                                      Nos. 11-09-00121-CR & 11-09-00122-CR

                                 __________

                                 ROBERT KEITH BROOKS, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 70th District Court

                                                           Ector County, Texas

                                     Trial Court Cause Nos. A-33,437 & A-33,438

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

The jury convicted Robert Keith Brooks of two offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, entered a deadly weapon finding in each case, and found the enhancement allegation in each case to be true.  The jury assessed punishment at confinement for thirty years in each case.  We dismiss the appeals.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each case.  The motions are supported by briefs in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeals are frivolous.  Counsel has provided appellant with copies of his briefs and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file responses to counsel=s briefs. Responses have 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 appeals are without merit.  We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file petitions 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 petitions 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 motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

November 19, 2009

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:   Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.