Robert Lee Oliver, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 385th District Court of Midland County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 11-06-00026-CR

Case Date: 09/14/2006

Plaintiff: Franciso Saucedo

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County

Preview:Robert Lee Oliver, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 385th District Court of Midland County
Opinion filed September 14, 2006
Opinion filed September 14, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
No. 11-06-00026-CR
ROBERT LEE OLIVER, JR., Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 385th District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR31035
O P I N I O N
The jury convicted Robert Lee Oliver, Jr. of felony driving while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at
confinement for seven and one-half years and a $1,500 fine. 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. Following the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel
has identified an arguable ground.
Appellate counsel questions whether the oral stipulation to the admission of a 1990 DWI conviction was ineffective
assistance on the part of trial counsel. Appellate counsel concludes that it was not. We agree.
Appellate 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
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/8382.html[8/20/2013 7:28:54 PM]

is without merit.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
September 14, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/8382.html[8/20/2013 7:28:54 PM]

Download 8382.pdf