









Opinion filed June 28, 2007
















 








 




Opinion filed June 28, 2007
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        In The
                                                                              
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                                                   __________
 
                                                          No. 11-06-00241-CR 
                                                    __________
 
                     ERIK
FERNANDO HOLGUIN
MORALES, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                        STATE
OF TEXAS,
Appellee
 

 
                                         On
Appeal from the 238th District Court
 
                                                         Midland
  County, Texas
 
                                                 Trial
Court Cause No. CR31152
 

 
                                                                   O
P I N I O N
The jury
convicted Erik Fernando Holguin Morales of burglary of a habitation and sexual
assault.  The jury assessed his
punishment at confinement for five years for the burglary offense and
confinement for ten years for the sexual assault offense.  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 presents one potential point in his
brief in which he contends that appellant may have been deprived of effective
assistance at trial.  We disagree.  The record does not support that contention.  Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668 (1984); Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Hernandez v. State,
988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 
Appellant stipulated that he had sexual intercourse with the victim; the
issue at trial was whether the victim consented.  Appellant has not overcome the presumption
that, under the circumstances, the stipulation be considered sound trial
strategy.  Bone v. State, 77
S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 508-09
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  The potential
point is overruled.
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.
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,  217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland
2007, no pet.). 
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the
judgment is affirmed.
 
PER CURIAM
June 28, 2007
Do not publish.  See
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel
consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall,
J., and Strange, J.

