Court Opinion

ID: 2913868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:01:16.455764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:05.955877
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed November 29, 2007

 

 

Opinion filed November 29,
2007
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                 ____________
 
                                                          No. 11-07-00217-CR
                                                    __________
 
                      RAYMOND JOSEPH SCHWARZBURG, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                        STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
                                         On
Appeal from the 221st District Court
 
                                                    Montgomery
County, Texas
 
                                          Trial
Court Cause No. 06-02-01046-CR
 

 
                                                                   O
P I N I O N
The
trial court convicted Raymond Joseph Schwarzburg, upon his plea of guilty, of
sexual assault of a child as a repeat sex offender.  A plea bargain agreement
was not reached.  The trial court found the enhancement allegation to be true
and assessed his punishment at confinement for life.  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); 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
 
November 29,
2007
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.