TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00037-CR NO. 03-03-00038-CR

Anteus F. English a/k/a Daniel Lorenzo Rogers, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 54,019 & 54,020, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the first cause, appellant Anteus F. English pleaded guilty to credit card abuse, was adjudged guilty by the court, and sentenced to incarceration in a state jail for two years. Tex. Pen.

Code Ann. § 32.31 (West 2003). In the second cause, appellant was convicted on his plea of guilty to robbery and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Id. § 29.02.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed briefs concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Copies of counsel’s briefs were delivered to appellant, who was advised of his right to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the records and counsel’s briefs and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals.

Counsel’s motions to withdraw are granted.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

David Puryear, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear Affirmed Filed: June 26, 2003 Do Not Publish