NUMBER 13-15-00075-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG JUAN MANUEL ALFARO, Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria Appellant Juan Manuel Alfaro appeals his conviction for one count of aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a), (b) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.).

We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND In September of 2014, the State charged appellant by indictment with one count of aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony. See id. The State alleged in the indictment that while in the course of committing the offense of robbery, appellant caused bodily injury to Ranulfo Dantes Mar and used or exhibited a deadly weapon.

Appellant initially pled not guilty and rejected several plea offers from the State.

However, appellant announced at the beginning of the trial on the merits that he was pleading guilty. The jury was instructed by the court to return a verdict of guilty and assess punishment. See State v. Aguilera, 165 S.W.3d 695, 698 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“We note that we have held that a plea of guilty to the court results in a unitary trial.”).

The jury returned a verdict of guilty as they were instructed and assessed punishment at fifty years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $10,000 fine.

This appeal followed. As discussed below, appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw accompanied by an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

II. ANDERS BRIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. 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, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment.1 Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, that counsel has: (1) notified the appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) informed the appellant of his rights to file a pro se response,2 review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if the Court concludes that the appeal is frivolous; and (3) provided the appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record, lacking only the appellant’s signature and the date and including the mailing address for the court of appeals, with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23.

Appellant filed a motion for pro se access to the appellate record and a motion for extension of time to file his response. We granted the motion with an order dated January 20, 2016 that provided that his pro se response was due thirty days after the record was

III. 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 and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. 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 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. We have found no reversible error in the record.

IV. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. 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

However, an employee of the District Clerk called the prison mailroom and confirmed that appellant received the clerk’s record on the same date that he received the reporter’s record: February 2, 2016. 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 counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 4 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).

V. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Nora L. Longoria Justice Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the 21st day of July, 2016.