TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00050-CR

Teodoro Benavides, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2044396, HONORABLE FRED A. MOORE, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Teodoro Benavides guilty of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). The jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at forty-five years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record 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). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and filed both a pro se written response and a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, the pro se response, and the pro se brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, No. PD-300-04, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1969, at *7- (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 2005). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop Affirmed Filed: February 16, 2006 Do Not Publish