Opinion filed November 22 , 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 172

- CR

__________ MARTIN SHAWN CARSWELL , Appellant

V

. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 266 th District Court

Erath County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR 14590

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Martin Shawn Carswell pleaded guilty to the offense of felony driving while
intoxicated and tru e to an enhancement allegation. As instructed, the jury found Appellant guilty and found the enh ancement allegation to be true. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for twenty years and a fine of $2,000

. W e dismiss the appeal.2

Appe llant’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 conclude s that the appeal is frivol ous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and a copy of the motion to
withdraw. Couns el also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with a cop y of the clerk’s
record and the reporter’s record. Appellant filed a pro se response in which he states, “I’ve done wrong but 20 years is asinine punishment.” Appellant also states in his response that he does not “feel like [he] was prop erly represented in this case.”
Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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. [Panel Op.] 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.). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedur es outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant 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, the3

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 Ru le 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

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

PER CURIAM

November 22 , 201 7 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 (b).
Panel consists of: W right , C.J., W illson, J

. , and Bailey, J.