Court Opinion

ID: 2914531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:36:34.346538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:08.990895
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed December 17, 2009 

 

 

Opinion filed December 17,
2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                  ___________
 
                                                          No. 11-09-00254-CR
                                                    __________
 
                             OLAN FLOYD BOATWRIGHT, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                         STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
                                        On
Appeal from the 142nd District Court
 
                                                        Midland
County, Texas
 
                                                 Trial
Court Cause No. CR32240
 

 
                                              M E
M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
This
is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt.  We dismiss.

Olan
Floyd Boatwright originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.  Pursuant to the plea bargain
agreement, the adjudication of his guilt was deferred, and he was placed on
community supervision for ten years.  At the hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate,
appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations that he violated the terms
and conditions of his community supervision.  The trial court found that the
allegations were true, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt,
and imposed a sentence of confinement for eight years.
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 17, 2009
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.