Richard William Miller v. State of Texas ( 2009 )

Opinion filed October 22, 2009

Opinion filed October 22, 2009

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-09-00027-CR

                                                    __________

                             RICHARD WILLIAM MILLER, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 396th District Court

                                                          Tarrant County, Texas

                                               Trial Court Cause No.  1106380D

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

The jury convicted Richard William Miller, upon his pleas of guilty, of three counts of aggravated robbery with a firearm and assessed his punishment at confinement for thirty years for each offense.  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 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 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.).

In his response, appellant contends that the doctrine of double jeopardy prevented the three count indictment for offenses occurring in one criminal transaction, that his trial counsel provided  ineffective assistance by allowing appellant to enter a guilty plea, and that the pretrial photo identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated in Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), that the court of appeals is to review appellant=s pro se claims and examine the record in order to determine whether the record reflects no reversible error and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed or whether arguable grounds exist and, therefore, new counsel should be appointed.  We have complied with the requirements in Bledsoe and have found no reversible error.

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

October 22, 2009

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.