









Opinion filed March 8, 2007















 








 




Opinion filed March 8, 2007
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                                                 ____________
 
                                                          No. 11-06-00280-CR 
                                                    __________
 
                            DEKOVAN ALUMJUAN HALL, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                        STATE
OF TEXAS,
Appellee
 

 
                                         On
Appeal from the 420th District Court
 
                                                   Nacogdoches
  County, Texas
 
                                             Trial
Court Cause No. F 139252006
 

 
                                                                   O
P I N I O N
This is
an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. 
Dekovan Alumjuan Hall originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense
of possession of cocaine.  Pursuant to
the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt,
placed appellant on community supervision for three years, and assessed a
$2,500 fine.  After a hearing on the
State=s motion to adjudicate, the trial court
found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community
supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and
imposed a sentence of confinement for eight years.  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 she 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); 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, No. 11-06-00273-CR,
2007 WL 431005 (Tex.
App.CEastland,
Feb. 8, 2007, no pet. h.). 
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the
judgment is affirmed.
 
PER CURIAM
 
March 8, 2007
Do not publish.  See
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel
consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall,
J., and Strange, J.

