DocketNumber： 11-07-00125-CR
Filed Date： 10/4/2007
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/10/2015
|
|
|
|
Opinion filed October 4, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-07-00125-CR
__________
TERRY DON ANDERSON A/K/A TERRY ANDERSON, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 95959
O P I N I O N
The trial court convicted Terry Don Anderson a/k/a Terry Anderson of arson and assessed his punishment at confinement for twelve 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 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); 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.).
In his response, appellant contends that one of the State=s witnesses committed perjury. Appellant bases his argument on the discrepancy between her testimony that she did not know how long it took for gasoline to burn and the fire investigator=s testimony that the soil sample he submitted for testing showed negative for an accelerant. The record does not support appellant=s contention that this difference in testimony constituted perjury. The fire investigator further testified that accelerants could have been used in the fire and could have been consumed in the extensive damage or could have been washed away during the firefighting operations. The difference in testimony was an issue for the fact-finder to resolve. Adelman v. State, 828 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); DeBolt v. State, 604 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Austin v. State, 794 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. App.CAustin 1990, pet. ref=d).
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
October 4, 2007
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.