NO. 07-05-0174-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D MAY 4, 2006 ______________________________

VINCENTE DOMINIQUE CHAVEZ, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; NO. 49,658-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a plea of not guilty, appellant Vincente Dominique Chavez was convicted of intoxication manslaughter, enhanced by two prior felonies, and sentenced to life confinement in a state jail facility. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit.

In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se response alleging the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction and he received ineffective assistance of counsel during voir dire. The State did not favor us with a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel reviews each phase of the proceedings and concludes that the record reveals no errors that would constitute grounds for reversal. We have

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). reviewed counsel’s brief in addition to the grounds raised by appellant. We have also conducted an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any other 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.Cr.App. 2005). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.