Opinion filed June 14, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-12-00066-CR

__________

FRANK DAMASON KELLY, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th 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 2011, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt,

alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision including 

allegations 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. The trial court found the alleged violations to be true, adjudicated 

appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement in the 
2

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

dismiss the appeal.

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 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 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 with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review 

by that court. 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 motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

June 14, 2012

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.

 

1By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.