Eric Edward Stinson v. State ( 2005 )


Menu:
  • 11th Court of Appeals

    Eastland, Texas

    Opinion

     

    Eric Edward Stinson

                Appellant

    Vs.                  No. 11-05-00090-CR -- Appeal from Palo Pinto County

    State of Texas

                Appellee

     

                 This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. Originally, the trial court convicted Eric Edward Stinson, upon his plea of guilty, of the offense of burglary of a building with intent to commit theft and assessed his punishment at confinement for 2 years in a state jail facility and a $2,500 fine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for 5 years. After a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, the trial court found the allegations that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision to be true, revoked his community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement in a state jail facility for 2 years. We affirm.

                Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an amended 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); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex.App. - Eastland 2005, no pet’n).

                Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.

                The amended motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

     

    PER CURIAM

     

    June 23, 2005

    Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

    Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

    Wright, J., and McCall, J.