Ronnie Wayne Morris v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion filed December 21, 2006

Opinion filed December 21, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-06-00135-CR

                                                    __________

                                RONNIE WAYNE MORRIS, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 238th District Court

                                                         Midland County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. CR29273

                                                                   O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted Ronnie Wayne Morris, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.  Appellant entered a plea of true to one of the enhancement allegations.  The trial court assessed punishment at confinement 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 he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. 

Counsel presents two potential points suggesting that the trial court erred by not conducting sua sponte a hearing on appellant=s competency and that trial counsel failed to provide effective assistance of counsel.  We agree with appellate counsel that neither the record before this court nor the applicable law support these points.

The record reflects that, after a jury was selected, appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of guilty.  The trial court proceeded to admonish appellant concerning his plea of guilty and specifically asked appellant if he had ever been under the care of a psychiatrist or if he had ever had a serious head injury. Appellant answered no to both questions. Appellant also stated that he understood the proceedings before the court.  Trial counsel informed the trial court that he had Aevery reason to believe@ that appellant understood what was happening. Nothing in the record supports the potential argument that the trial court erred by failing sua sponte to conduct a competency hearing.

The record does not support the potential point of error that appellant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  In fact, the record reflects that trial counsel provided reasonably effective assistance.  Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).  Further, the record does not reflect that counsel=s representation was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel=s error, appellant would have not pleaded guilty. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Kober v. State, 988 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

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); 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.).

The motion to withdraw is granted.  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, No. AP-74996, 2006 WL 2619989 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 13, 2006).  Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 66.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

December 21, 2006

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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.