Opinion
No. 11-08-00231-CR
Opinion filed January 22, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13735.
Panel consists of: WRIGHT, C.J., McCALL, J., and STRANGE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The jury convicted Kenneth Neal Ratliff of assaulting a public servant, found the enhancement allegations to be true, and assessed his punishment at confinement for thirty 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 he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel presents one possible point of error in his brief challenging the trial court's overruling of a request to include resisting arrest as a lesser included offense in the jury charge. Counsel concludes that the trial court did not err. We agree. 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.-Eastland 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.-Eastland 2007, no pet.). The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.