Brian Scott Barton v. State of Texas--Appeal from 58th District Court of Jefferson County

Opinion filed August 16, 2007

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

   No. 11-07-00113-CR

__________

   BRIAN SCOTT BARTON, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 58th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 93941

O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Brian Scott Barton of aggravated assault, found that a deadly weapon was used or exhibited in the commission of the offense, and found both enhancement allegations to be true. The jury 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 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 the victim testified that appellant stabbed him twice in his stomach with a serrated knife that was curved like a claw or talon.

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

August 16, 2007

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.