Court Opinion

ID: 2915114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:50:25.359859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:09.286799
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed January 22, 2009 

 

 

Opinion filed January 22,
2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                   __________
 
                                                          No. 11-08-00231-CR
                                           __________
 
                                KENNETH NEAL RATLIFF, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                         STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
                                          On
Appeal from the 29th District Court
 
                                                       Palo
Pinto County, Texas
 
                                                    Trial
Court Cause No. 13735
 

 
                                             M
E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
The
jury convicted Kenneth Neal Ratliff of assaulting a public servant, found the
enhancement allegations to be true, and assessed his punishment at confinement
for thirty years.  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
presents one possible point of error in his brief challenging the trial court=s overruling of a request
to include resisting arrest as a lesser included offense in the jury charge. 
Counsel concludes that the trial court did not err.  We agree.
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
 
January 22, 2009
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.