Opinion filed May 4, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-05-00389-CR

                                                    __________

                                    BRENDA KAY HALL, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 161st District Court

                                                           Ector County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. B-32,015

                                                                   O P I N I O N

Brenda Kay Hall entered pleas of guilty to the offense of forgery by passing and of true to both enhancement allegations.  The jury convicted her, found the enhancement allegations to be true, and assessed her punishment at confinement for nine years and a $250 fine.  We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.  The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief.  A response has not been filed.  Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).

In the brief in support of the motion to withdraw, counsel considers whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel in the entry of her guilty plea; at the punishment phase of her trial; or in accordance with U.S. Const. amends. V, VI, & XIV, Tex. Const. art. I, ' 10, and Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Ann. art. 1.04 (Vernon 2005).  Counsel notes in his brief that the record Ais devoid@ or Avoid@ of anything that would support these concerns and concludes that these concerns could not be properly raised on appeal.

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. 

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

PER CURIAM

May 4, 2006

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.