Robert Lee Oliver, Jr. v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion filed September 14, 2006

Opinion filed September 14, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-06-00026-CR

                                                    __________

                               ROBERT LEE OLIVER, JR., Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 385th District Court

                                                         Midland County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. CR31035

                                                                   O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Robert Lee Oliver, Jr. of felony driving while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at confinement for seven and one-half years and a $1,500 fine.  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 he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.  Following the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has identified an arguable ground.

Appellate counsel questions whether the oral stipulation to the admission of a 1990 DWI conviction was ineffective assistance on the part of trial counsel. Appellate counsel concludes that it was not.  We agree.

Appellate 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. 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.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

September 14, 2006

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.