Jesse Earl Andrews v. State ( 2010 )

NO. 07-09-0106-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
FEBRUARY 17, 2010
_____________________________
JESSE EARL ANDREWS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
____________________________
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 20512-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jesse Earl Andrews, was convicted of burglary of a building.1 After
appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the enhancement paragraph, the
jury sentenced him to 20 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant has appealed the trial court=s decision. We
affirm.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a) (Vernon 2003).
Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling
authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has
certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to
withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this
matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has
also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has filed a
response which we have carefully reviewed. After reviewing the response filed by
appellant, we note that it does not raise any additional grounds to support an appeal.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824
(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s
judgment is affirmed.2
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.