NUMBER 13-10-00170-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

GREGORY MICHAEL CELESTINE,                                           Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                Appellee.

On appeal from the Criminal District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

            A jury convicted appellant, Gregory Michael Celestine, of possession of a controlled substance, specifically, phencyclidine (“PCP”), a second-degree felony.  See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(d) (Vernon 2010).  The trial court found appellant to be a repeat felony offender and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 12.42(b) (Vernon Supp. 2010).

I.  Anders Brief

            Celestine’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has concluded that there is no reversible error.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).  Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) examined the record and has found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served copies of the brief and motion to withdraw on Celestine, and (3) informed Celestine of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response.[1]  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  Celestine filed a pro se response.  See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 

II.  Independent Review

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).  We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response, and find that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III.  Motion to Withdraw

            In accordance with Anders, Celestine’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as his appellate counsel.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.  To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)).  We grant the motion to withdraw.

            We order that counsel must, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Celestine and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.[2]  See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

________________________

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered and filed the

10th day of February, 2011.