Eddie Palma Jr. v. State of Texas ( 2010 )

Opinion filed September 30, 2010

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-10-00121-CR

                                                    __________

                                    EDDIE PALMA JR., Appellant

                                                             V.

                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                   On Appeal from the 70th District Court

                                                             Ector County, Texas

                                                   Trial Court Cause No. A-36,513

                                            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 originally convicted Eddie Palma Jr., upon his plea of guilty, of possession of less than one gram of cocaine and assessed his punishment at confinement for two years in a state jail facility.   Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for five years.  After a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for two years in a state jail facility.  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 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); 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, 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.—Eastland 2007, no pet.).

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

PER CURIAM

September 30, 2010

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.