Opinion filed November 22, 2017




                                     In The


          Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                  __________

                              No. 11-17-00172-CR
                                  __________

               MARTIN SHAWN CARSWELL, Appellant
                                        V.
                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                    On Appeal from the 266th District Court
                             Erath County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. CR14590


                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Martin Shawn Carswell pleaded guilty to the offense of felony driving while
intoxicated and true to an enhancement allegation. As instructed, the jury found
Appellant guilty and found the enhancement allegation to be true. The jury assessed
punishment at confinement for twenty years and a fine of $2,000. 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 concludes that the appeal is frivolous.
Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and a copy of the motion to
withdraw. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file
a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the clerk’s
record and the reporter’s record. Appellant filed a pro se response in which he states,
“I’ve done wrong but 20 years is asinine punishment.” Appellant also states in his
response that he does not “feel like [he] was properly represented in this case.”
      Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); 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. [Panel Op.] 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.). In addressing an Anders brief and
pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds
no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause
to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).   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. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
      We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may
file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the
                                          2
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


November 22, 2017
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.




                                          3
