Opinion issued October 29, 2009

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

__________

NO.   01-09-00332-CR

NO.   01-09-00405-CR

NO.   01-09-00406-CR

__________

ANDREW STUBBLEFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas[1]

Trial Court Cause No. 19,243

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Andrew Stubblefield, was indicted for four counts of aggravated robbery, charged in a single indictment.[2] Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant pleaded guilty and the State abandoned the fourth count and made an agreed punishment recommendation as to the remaining counts.  The trial court followed the agreed punishment recommendation, deferred adjudication of guilt on the remaining three counts, and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years with a $3000 fine.

Just over five months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that appellant had violated four conditions of his community supervision.  The trial court sanctioned appellant and continued him on community supervision.  Three months later, the State filed a second motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that appellant had violated a condition of his supervision.  The trial court sanctioned appellant and continued him on community supervision.  A year later, the State filed a third motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that appellant had violated six conditions of his community supervision.  After a contested evidentiary hearing at which appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations that he had violated his community supervision, the trial court found that all six allegations were true, adjudicated appellant’s guilt on each of the three aggravated robbery charges, and sentenced him to prison for 40 years on each conviction, with the sentences running concurrently.  Appellant did not file a motion for new trial.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal for his convictions.  We affirm.

Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating the record presents no reversible error, that the appeal is without merit and frivolous, and that the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).  The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal.  Id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400.  Appellant’s counsel has, in accordance with Anders procedures, filed a motion to withdraw.  Id.  Counsel represents that he has served a copy of the brief to the appellant.  Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  Appellant filed a pro se response. 

When this Court receives an Anders brief, we evaluate the appeal by conducting an independent review of the entire record.  Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).  Our responsibility is not “to review the merits of each claim raised” but simply to “determine whether there are any arguable grounds” upon which counsel could ethically base an appeal.  Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  An arguable ground for appeal is a ground that is not frivolous; it must be an argument that could “conceivably persuade the court.”  In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1901 (1988)).  If after reviewing the entire record, we conclude that an appeal would be frivolous, we may affirm the trial court by issuing an opinion in which we explain that we found no arguable grounds upon which to base an appeal.  Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–28.

In accordance with Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45, 87 S. Ct. at 1400, and Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27, we have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s Anders brief, and appellant’s pro se response. We conclude that no arguable ground for reversible error exists.  Having reached that conclusion, we affirm the lower court and grant appellant’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.[3]

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

                                                          Jim Sharp

                                                          Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Sharp.

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