Ronnie Caddell v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

Opinion filed April 12, 2007

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

   Nos. 11-06-00306-CR & 11-06-00307-CR

__________

  RONNIE CADDELL, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 241st District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 241-1601-06 & 241-1602-06

O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted Ronnie Caddell, upon his guilty pleas, of two offenses of delivery of cocaine and found the enhancement allegations to be true. Plea bargain agreements were not reached. The trial court assessed punishment at life for each offense. We affirm.

In each case, appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motions are supported by briefs in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeals are frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with copies of the briefs and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file responses to counsel=s briefs. Responses have 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 appeals are without merit. The record reflects that appellant was admonished both in writing and in open court. Appellant signed written stipulations of evidence and also admitted his guilt in open court. The records support counsel=s conclusions that appellant entered his pleas voluntarily and knowingly and that trial counsel provided effective assistance.

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file petitions 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 petitions 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.).

The motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

April 12, 2007

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.