NOS. 12-05-00311-CR

          12-05-00312-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BRANDON MONQUEZ DIXON,   §                      APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V.                                            §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE                                       §                      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Brandon Dixon appeals his convictions for robbery and theft.  In each case, he entered a guilty plea.  The trial court sentenced him to twelve years of imprisonment on the robbery charge and two years of confinement in a state jail facility on the theft charge, the sentences to run concurrently.  Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  We affirm.

Background

            In trial court cause number 241-0845-05, Appellant was charged by indictment with causing bodily injury while in the course of committing theft.  In trial court cause number 241-0588-05, he was charged by indictment with theft of a Chevrolet Suburban.  In both cases, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, stipulated to the evidence, and pleaded guilty without an agreement as to punishment.  After a presentence investigation and a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twelve years of confinement in the penitentiary for the robbery charge and two years of confinement in a state jail facility for the theft charge.  The trial court ordered the two sentences to run concurrently.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate records and is of the opinion that the records reflect no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in these cases.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the cases and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.¹  We have likewise reviewed the records for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

            As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

Opinion delivered March 31, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)