Court Opinion

ID: 2914745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:42:05.951619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:10.004156
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed August 13, 2009 

 

 

Opinion filed August 13,
2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                  ___________
 
                                                          No. 11-09-00019-CR
                                           __________
 
                                     JONATHAN S. GRAY, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                         STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
                                 On
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
 
                                                          Tarrant
County, Texas
 
                                                Trial
Court Cause No. 1024754D
 

 
                                            M
E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N
This
is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt.  We dismiss the appeal.

Jonathan
S. Gray originally entered a plea of guilty to the fraudulent possession of
Xanax, a controlled substance or prescription.  The trial court deferred the
adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for three
years.  A fine of $300 was also imposed.  At the hearing on the State=s second motion to
adjudicate, appellant entered pleas to three of the State=s allegations.  The trial
court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his
community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his
guilt, and assessed his punishment at confinement for seven years.
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 she 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. 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.CEastland
2005, no pet.).
Following
the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the
record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.  We note that counsel
has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for
discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  Ex parte Owens,
206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  Likewise, this court advises appellant
that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 66.  Black v. State, 
217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland
2007, no pet.). 
The
motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
 
 
PER CURIAM
 
August 13, 2009
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.