Court Opinion

ID: 2914537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:36:53.842382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:33.607508
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed December 17, 2009 

 

 

Opinion filed December 17,
2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                   __________
 
                                                          No. 11-09-00266-CR
                                           __________
 
                                  JOSE ANTHONY LORTA, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                         STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
                                         On
Appeal from the 220th District Court
 
                                                      Comanche
County, Texas
 
                                          Trial
Court Cause No. CCCR-08-03112
 

 
                                              M E
M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N

This
is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision.  The trial court
convicted Jose Anthony Lorta, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary of a
habitation and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a
$1,000 fine.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the imposition of the
confinement portion was suspended, and appellant was placed on community
supervision for ten years.  At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of
true to three allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his
community supervision.  The trial court found that appellant had violated the
terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community
supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement for ten 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 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.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.