NUMBER 13-13-00073-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE ATHEY, Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez Appellant, Christopher Lawrence Athey, was indicted for burglary of a habitation, with intent to commit theft. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 30.02 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S). In the indictment, the State included an enhancement paragraph, alleging that appellant had previously been convicted of a felony, to-wit: burglary of a habitation,

Concluding that there are no errors that would result in the reversal of the judgment of the trial court, appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief with this Court stating that he has found no reversible error committed by the trial court and no arguable ground of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has explained why, under controlling authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders by (1) examining the record and applicable law and finding no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) serving a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw as counsel on appellant, (3) informing appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response raising any ground of error or complaint which he may desire. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response with this Court. 2 See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n. 23.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s Anders brief, the State’s brief, and appellant’s pro se brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, we affirm.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as 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.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the

As noted above, appellant has still not filed a pro se response. 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 counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 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).

___________________ ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 8th day of May, 2014.

Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.