Court Opinion

ID: 2914382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:19:53.105846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:08.751237
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed June 12, 2008 

 

 

Opinion filed June 12,
2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                 ____________
 
                                                          No. 11-08-00043-CR
                                                    __________
 
                       CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM BARRETT, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                         STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
                                         On
Appeal from the 266th District Court
 
                                                           Erath
County, Texas
 
                                                 Trial
Court Cause No. CR12805
 

 
                                            M
E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N
The
jury convicted Christopher William Barrett of indecency with a child and
assessed his punishment at confinement for five years and a $1,500 fine. 
Following the jury=s
recommendation, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement
portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for ten
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, No. AP-75,911,
2008 WL 1901389 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 30, 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); 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
 
June 12, 2008
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.