

Opinion filed April 28,
2011
 
                                                                       In The
                                                                              
  Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                   __________
 
                                                         No. 11-10-00383-CR
                                                    __________
 
                              JOHNNY
FREDRICK HENRY A/K/A 
                        JOHNNY
FREDRICK HENRY, JR., Appellant 
 
                                                             V.
 
                                      STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee

 
                                    On
Appeal from the 29th District Court
 
                                                         Palo
Pinto County, Texas
 
                                                      Trial
Court Cause No. 14382
 

 
M
E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N
            The
jury convicted Johnny Fredrick Henry a/k/a Johnny Fredrick Henry, Jr. of
robbery.  Upon appellant’s plea of “true” to two felonies alleged for
enhancement purposes, the jury sentenced appellant to confinement in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term
of fifty years.  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.  In
this regard, we note that appellant essentially admitted at trial to the conduct
with which he was charged.  
We
note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a
petition for discretionary review with the clerk of this court seeking review
by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  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
 
April 28, 2011
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).
Panel[2]
consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Hill, J.[3]
 
 




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


[2]Rick Strange, Justice, resigned effective April 17,
2011.  The justice position is vacant pending appointment of a successor by the
governor.


 
[3]John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd
District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.


