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 251[ST] 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. 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 courts decision. We affirm.
Appellants 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 courts 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, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.