Court Opinion

ID: 2914553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:37:16.280953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:44.951829
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed December 3, 2009

 

 

Opinion filed December 3,
2009
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                 ____________
 
                                                          No. 11-09-00180-CR
                                                    __________
 
                            RANDALL PAUL HATHCOCK, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                         STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
                                         On
Appeal from the 220th District Court
 
                                                      Comanche
County, Texas
 
                                          Trial
Court Cause No. CCCR-07-02973
 

 
                                              M E
M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
The
trial court convicted Randall Paul Hathcock, upon his plea of guilty, of
possession of  four grams or more but less than two hundred grams of methamphetamine
with the intent to deliver.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial
court assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty-five years and a $1,000
fine.  We dismiss.

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); and 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 appeal is dismissed.
 
PER CURIAM
 
December 3, 2009
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.