Court Opinion

ID: 2899133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-08 23:57:17.028457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:30.770486
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-08-0317-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JUNE 29, 2009
______________________________

FREDERICK DEWAYNE STRICKLAND, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________

FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 20005-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE
_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
          Appellant, Frederick Dwayne Strickland, was convicted of three counts of
aggravated assault and sentenced to 17 years confinement in the Institutional Division of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $5,000 on each count with the
sentences to run concurrently.  It is from this judgment that appellant appeals.  
          Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies
that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no
reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45.  In
compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has
candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s
judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the
Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file
a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.
1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. 
Appellant has not filed a response.

          By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal,
but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an
independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable
grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346,
102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We
have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
 
 
          Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.

 
                                                                           Mackey K. Hancock
                                                                                     Justice

Do not publish.