Court Opinion

ID: 3089752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 03:50:32.326551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:12.949173
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed October 27, 2011

                                           In The

   Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                         __________

                                    No. 11-10-00336-CR
                                        __________

                           OTIS CHAMP ALLEN, Appellant

                                                V.

                                 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                          On Appeal from the 358th District Court

                                      Ector County, Texas

                                 Trial Court Cause No. D-35,627

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
       After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Otis Champ Allen of possession of a
controlled substance and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years. Specifically, a consensual
search of appellant revealed the presence of crack cocaine located within a fanny pack that
appellant was wearing. We dismiss the appeal.
       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.1 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 and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and
we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
409.
       We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition
for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review
by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on
appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for
discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a
petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
       The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

                                                                                              PER CURIAM

October 27, 2011
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.

       1
           By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.

                                                                   2