Jose Anthony Lorta v. State of Texas ( 2009 )

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.