TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00033-CR NO. 03-08-00034-CR

Mary Phoung Hill, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 61499 & 61500, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In each of these cases, appellant Mary Phoung Hill pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to committing forgery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West Supp. 2007). The court assessed punishment for each offense at twenty-three months in state jail, to run concurrently.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed briefs concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records 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 was advised of her right to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the records and counsel’s briefs and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson Affirmed Filed: May 8, 2008 Do Not Publish