NO. 07-08 -031 7-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 29, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ FREDERICK DEW AYNE STRICKL AND, APPE LLA NT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; NO . 200 05-A; H ON ORABLE HA L M IN ER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Frederic k D w ay ne St ri ck lan d, was conv icted o f thre e c ounts of ag g ra v ated ass aul t and se ntenc ed to 17 years c onfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Texas Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce and a fine of $5,00 0 on each countw it h the sent encesto ru n c oncur re ntl y . It is from t hisj udg ment t hat a ppel lan t app eal s. A p p e ll a n t ’s a tt o rn e y h a s f il e d a n A n d e rs b ri e f a n d a m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. A n d e rs v. Cal ifor nia , 386 U .S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 139 6, 18 L.E d. 2d 498 (1 967) ; I n re Sc hul man , 252 S.W .3d 4 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2008)
. In suppo rt of hi s moti on to w it hdraw , c ounse l cer ti fiesApp ellantf iled two requests for exten sions of time to file a respo nse to the An ders 1 br ief, ho w ev er , app ell ant n ev er fil ed a re spons e.

2 that h e has di li g entl y

rev iewed th e record, an d i n hi s o pin ion , t he record reflect s n o re v ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appeal can be predi cat ed. Anders, 386 U. S. at 74 4- 45. In compl ian ce w it h Hig h v . St ate, 573 S. W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1978) , c ounse l has cand idly discussed w hy, unde r the con trolling autho rities, t here is no e rror i n the trial court’s jud g ment. Addi ti onal ly , couns el has cer ti fied th at he has prov ide d appel lan t a copy of the And ers brief

and mot ion to w ithdra w and app ropriate ly advised app ellant of his ri ght to f ile a pro serespon se in thi s matter
. Stafford v . St ate, 813 S. W .2d 5 03, 5 10 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1991)
. The cour

t hasal so adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r igh t to f ile a pro serespon se. Appel lan t hasnot filed a respon se. 1 By his And ers brief , coun sel raises groun ds tha t could possib ly supp ort an a ppe al, but c oncl udes the a ppeal i s frivolo us. W e hav e rev iewed th ese g ro unds and made an inde pen den t rev iew

of the en tire record to d e t e rm ine w het her the re are any arg uab le g ro unds w hic h mi g ht s uppor t an appeal
. See P enson v . O hio , 488 U .S. 75, 109 S. Ct . 346 , 1 0 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 3 0 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; B l e d s o e v . S t a t e , 1 7 8 S
. W. 3 d 8 2 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 )
. W e have foun d no such arguab le groun ds an d agree w ith cou nsel th at the a ppe al is friv olou s.Cou nsel sh all , w it hin fiv e days a fter t hisopi nio n i s h anded d ow n, s end hi s c li ent a 2 copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of appel lan t’ s r ig ht t o fil e a pro se peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 8.4.

3 Acc ordi ng l y , c ou ns el ’ s mo ti on t o w i th draw i s h ereb y

g ran te d an d th e tr i al c ou rt’s jud g ment i s a ff ir med. 2

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.