Court Opinion

ID: 2914289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:18:22.519395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:08.453336
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed September 4, 2008

 

 

Opinion filed September 4, 2008
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                 ____________
 
                                                          No. 11-08-00139-CR
                                                    __________
 
                             JORGE ALBERTO MARTINEZ, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                         STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
                                          On
Appeal from the 70th District Court
 
                                                           Ector
County, Texas
 
                                                 Trial
Court Cause No. A-26,407
 

 
                                             M
E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This
is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision.  The trial court
convicted Jorge Alberto Martinez, upon his plea of guilty, of felony driving
while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and
a $500 fine.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended
the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision
for ten years.  After a hearing on the State=s
motion to revoke, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms
and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision,
and imposed a sentence of confinement for seven years and a fine of $291.50. 
We affirm.
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.
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); 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 judgment is affirmed.
 
PER CURIAM
 
September 4,
2008
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.