Opinion filed June 14 , 201 2



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 12

- 00066

- C R

__________ FRANK DAMASON KELLY , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 35 8 th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No . D

- 36,530

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Frank Damason Kelly pleaded guilty in October 2009 to robbery. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of eight years. In October 201 1 , the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt
, alleging multiple violation s of the terms and conditions of community supervision including
alle gations that appellant had used marihuana on six occasions while on probation

. The trial
court heard the motion to proceed on January 17 , 2012. Appellant admitted to the alleged violations during the hearing. T he trial court found the alleged violations to be true, adjudicated appellan t guilty of the charged offense, and assessed h is punishment at confinement in the2

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of eight years

. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court

- appo inted 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 provide d appellant with a copy of the b rief and advised appellant of h is right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not 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 record, and we agree that the appeal is without me rit 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 with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. 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, alo ng 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.
The motion to w ithdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

June 14 , 2012 Do not 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, this c ourt granted a ppellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.