Opinion filed June 30 , 2011



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 11

- 00024

- C R

__________ THANH VU CHRISTIANSON , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No s . FISC

- 10

- 20254

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Thanh Vu Christianson entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of continuous sexual
abuse of a child. In this regard, he executed a written stipulation wherein he judicially c onfessed that he “committed the offense as alleged in the indictment/information in this cause.” T he trial court accepted appellant’s plea of guilty and sentenced him to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of forty

- five 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 record2

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); Staf ford 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 co unsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of this court seeking review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4 (“ In criminal cases, the attorney representing t he 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. ”)

. Like wise, 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 to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

June 30 , 2011 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel 2 consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Hill , J. 3

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.

2 Rick Strange, Justice, resigned effective April 17, 2011. The justice position is vacant pending appointment of a successor by the governor.

3 John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.