Court Opinion

ID: 2914217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:17:28.108288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:35.479200
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed November 13, 2008

                                             In The

   Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                           __________

                                    No. 11-08-00232-CR
                                        __________

                        DARRELL DEE FOREMAN, Appellant

                                                V.

                               STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                           On Appeal from the 266th District Court

                                      Erath County, Texas

                                Trial Court Cause No. CR12987

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
       The jury convicted Darrell Dee Foreman, upon his plea of guilty, of unlawful possession of
a firearm, found the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed his punishment at confinement
for twenty 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 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.—Eastland 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.—Eastland 2007, no pet.).
       The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

                                                              PER CURIAM

November 13, 2008
Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP . P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.

                                                  2