Opinion filed August 31, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

Nos. 11-11-00064-CR, 11-11-00065-CR, 11-11-00066-CR,

11-11-00067-CR, 11-11-00068-CR, 11-11-00069-CR, & 11-11-00070-CR

__________

OTIS MAX COLLINS, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 90th District Court

Stephens County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F32573, F32576, F32577, F32865, F32866, F32867, & F32868

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

Otis Max Collins entered open pleas of guilty to the offenses of possession of between 

four and two hundred grams of methamphetamine (Cause No. 11-11-00064-CR), unlawful 

possession of a firearm by a felon (Cause No. 11-11-00065-CR), burglary of a habitation (Cause 

No. 11-11-00066-CR), prohibited sexual conduct (Cause No. 11-11-00067-CR), prohibited 

sexual conduct (Cause No. 11-11-00068-CR), sexual assault of a child (Cause No. 11-11-00069-

CR), and sexual assault of a child (Cause No. 11-11-00070-CR). Appellant also entered a plea 

of “true” to the enhancement allegation in the four sexually related cases. After accepting 

appellant’s pleas, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division 

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for terms of fifteen years, ten years, fifteen years, 
2

fifteen years, fifteen years, ninety-nine years, and ninety-nine years, respectively, and assessed a 

fine of $5,000 in each case. The trial court ordered the sentences in the first five cases to run 

concurrently with each other, and it ordered the sentences for the two convictions for sexual 

assault of a child to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the fifteen-year 

sentences for the offenses of prohibited sexual conduct. We dismiss the appeals. 

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in each appeal a motion to withdraw. Each

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 briefs and advised appellant of his right to review the 

records and file a response to counsel’s briefs. No response has been filed.1 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.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the records, and we agree that the appeals are without merit and should be dismissed. 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 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. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, 

within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and 

judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 

The motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed. 

August 31, 2011 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.

 

1By letter dated July 14, 2011, this court notified appellant that his response, if he chose to file one, was 

due in this court on or before August 15, 2011.