Glenn Ervin Anders v. State

NO. 07-11-00149-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 14, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN ERVIN ANDERS, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY;
NO. CR22898; HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Glenn Ervin Anders, pleaded guilty to two counts of indecency with a child by contact without a plea bargain agreement except as to the upper limits of the sentence. The trial court sentenced appellant to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a period of 10 years on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant has appealed the judgment of the trial court. 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 not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all 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
Pirtle, J., concurring.
Do not publish.