Bobby Merrill Berry v. State of Texas ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed March 22, 2012

     

                                                                           In The

                                                                                 

      Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                       __________

     

                                                             No. 11-11-00332-CR

                                                        __________

     

                                  BOBBY MERRILL BERRY, Appellant

     

                                                                 V.

     

                                          STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

     

                                        On Appeal from the 29th District Court

     

                                                             Palo Pinto County, Texas

     

                                                          Trial Court Cause No. 14565

     

     

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

    The jury convicted Bobby Merrill Berry of aggravated sexual assault and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life.  We dismiss the appeal.

    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.[1] 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.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).  Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.  Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

    We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court.  Tex. R. App. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 68.

    The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

     

                                                                                                    PER CURIAM

                                                                                                               

    March 22, 2012

    Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

    McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.



    [1]By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.