Opinion filed March 1, 2007

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-06-00338-CR

                                                    __________

                             ROBERT ALLEN PASQUALE, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                  On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

                                                           Ector County, Texas

                                                  Trial Court Cause No. 05-1271

                                                                   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision   The trial court convicted Robert Allen Pasquale, upon his plea of guilty, of the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at confinement for one year and a $1,200 fine.  However, the imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for two years.  At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to seven of the State=s eight allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision.  The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement for 240 days.  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 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 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,  No. 11-06-00273-CR, 2007 WL 431005 (Tex. App.CEastland,  Feb. 8, 2007, no pet. h.).

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

March 1, 2007

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.