NO. 07-11-0120-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WILLIE WALTER GRANT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ___________________________ FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NO. A16973-0611; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Memorandum Opinion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Willie Walter Grant appeals his conviction for credit card abuse. His appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal is without merit. Counsel has also attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel's belief and of appellant's right to file his own brief or response pro se. By letter dated August 3, 2011, this court notified appellant of the same right and set September 2, 2011, as the deadline to respond. To date, appellant has filed neither a response, brief, nor request for an extension of time.

In compliance with the principles of Anders, appellate counsel discussed three potential areas for appeal. They involved 1) the original plea of guilty, 2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation of appellant's community supervision, and 3) the propriety of the trial court's, on its own motion, granting a new trial regarding appellant's plea of guilty and holding a new guilty plea hearing. Counsel then explained why each argument lacked merit since appellant had plead guilty to the amended indictment, the subject of the new trial, and had plead true to the allegations found in the State's motion to revoke his community supervision.

We also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel's conclusions and to uncover any error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). That review failed to reveal any reversible error.

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

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.