Opinion filed August 31, 2011



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No s . 11 - 1 1 - 00 064 - C R , 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 No s . 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 plea s of guilty to the offense s 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). A ppellant a lso 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 o f Criminal Justice for term s 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 order e d the sentences in the first f ive 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 cond uct. We dismiss the appeal s . 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 brief s and advised appellant of his right to review the record s and file a response to counsel’s brief s . 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 (Te x. 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 re viewed the record s , and we agree that the appeal s 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. T EX . R. A PP . 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 re view under Rule 68.”)

. Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 6 8
. The motion s to withdraw are granted, and the appeal s are dismissed. August 31, 2011 PER CURIAM Do no t publish. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak , J.

1 By letter dated July 14, 2011 , this c ourt notified a ppellant that his response, if he chose to file one, was due in this court on or before August 15, 2011
.