Opinion filed March 3, 2011

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-10-00223-CR

                                                    __________

                         ROLAND HAYES SCHULTZ, III, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                    On Appeal from the 29th District Court

                                                         Palo Pinto County, Texas

                                                      Trial Court Cause No. 14232

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

            The jury convicted Roland Hayes Schultz, III of possession of marihuana in an amount greater than four ounces but less than five pounds.  The trial court sentenced him to confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of twenty-two months.  We dismiss the appeal.

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.[1]  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.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

           Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.  Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.  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.  Tex. R. App. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”).  Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 68. 

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

March 3, 2011

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.