Opinion filed February 18, 2010

                                                                        In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                   Nos. 11-09-00323-CR, 11-09-00324-CR, & 11-09-00329-CR

                                                    __________

                            SHANNON MARTIN ST. CLAIR, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 91st District Court

                                                       Eastland County, Texas

                                   Trial Court Cause Nos. 22143, 22144, & 22146

                                           M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted Shannon Martin St. Clair, upon his pleas of guilty, of two offenses of delivery of marihuana to a child.^[1]  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreements, the trial court assessed punishment for each delivery offense at confinement for fifteen years.  In the tampering-with-evidence case,^[2] the trial court granted appellant=s plea in bar and discharged him. Appellant filed pro se notices of appeal.  We dismiss each appeal.

In each appeal, 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 each appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has provided appellant with copies of each brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file responses.  Responses have 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); and 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.  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, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.).

The motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

February 18, 2010

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.