In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-23-00433-CR

DANIEL FLOREZ, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 46th District Court Wilbarger County, Texas Trial Court No. 12,898, Honorable Cornell Curtis, Presiding July 12, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

In January 2023, Appellant, Daniel Florez, pleaded guilty to the offense of arson, a second-degree felony,1 pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court sentenced him to eight years of deferred adjudication community supervision with conditions and assessed a fine of $4,000. On March 8, 2023, the State filed its First Amended Motion to Proceed With an Adjudication of Guilt, alleging that Appellant had violated four conditions of his

Appellant was sentenced to sixteen years of confinement and a $5,000 fine. In this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

In support of her motion, counsel has certified that she has conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant, counsel notified him of her motion to withdraw, provided him with a copy of counsel’s Anders brief and the appellate record, and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se

In her Anders brief, counsel discusses possible areas in the record where error may have occurred, but concludes that any appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted3 and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

Lawrence M. Doss Justice Do not publish.