Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ, and BOYD, S.J. ⁽¹⁾

On December 27, 2002, appellant Conseco Finance Servicing Corp., filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in this appeal.

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 8, this appeal is suspended until further order of this court. The parties are directed to take such action as is appropriate to advise the clerk of this court of any change in the status of appellant Conseco Finance Servicing Corp.'s bankruptcy proceeding which would affect the status of this appeal, including but not limited to the filing of a Motion to Reinstate pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 8.3.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

Appellant's appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In that brief, she certifies that, after careful examination of the record, she has concluded that appellant's appeal is without merit. Along with her brief, she has attached a copy of a letter informing appellant of her intent to withdraw and of his right to file a pro se brief. Appellant filed several motions for extension of time to file his brief, and the last extension gave appellant 30 days from June 11, 2001, to file a brief. No such brief was ever filed, and the State has waived any remaining time in which to file its brief.

In considering federal constitutional matters of this type, we face two interrelated tasks as we consider counsel's motion to withdraw. We must satisfy ourselves that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client's appeal, and then we must determine whether counsel has correctly concluded the appeal is frivolous. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

Appellant waived the right to have a court reporter record his plea of guilty, so the only record before us shows that appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to trial by jury and pled guilty to the offense. The record also indicates he was properly admonished. Furthermore, at the sentencing hearing, appellant's counsel called several witnesses to the stand in an attempt to obtain probation for appellant. However, the court assessed punishment at ten years confinement, which was within the authorized range of punishment for the charged offense. Thus, we have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). Finding none, we are in agreement with counsel that the appeal is without merit and is therefore frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

John T. Boyd

Chief Justice

Do not publish.