




Opinion filed September 4, 2008 











 








 




Opinion filed September 4,
2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                 ____________
 
                                                          No. 11-07-00122-CR
                                                    __________
 
                                   BILLY WAYNE CLARK, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                         STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
                                         On
Appeal from the 411th District Court
 
                                                            Polk
County, Texas
 
                                                   Trial
Court Cause No. 18,849
 

 
                                              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 Billy Wayne Clark, upon his plea of guilty, of unauthorized use of
vehicle and assessed his punishment at confinement for two years in a state
jail facility and a $1,500 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 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 a sentence of confinement for twenty months in a state jail facility. 
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.  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); 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 judgment is affirmed.
 
PER CURIAM
 
September 4,
2008
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.

