AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed January 30, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00583-CR QUINCEY DOMINIQUE WASHINGTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 33694CR MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Goldstein, Garcia, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Goldstein Appellant was indicted for the first-degree offense of aggravated robbery.

Washington pled guilty to the lesser included offense of robbery and the trial court, following a sentencing hearing, assessed punishment at twelve years Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Institutional Division, with a deadly weapon finding. Washington appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California in which she stated that after thorough review, she has found no grounds for appeal with potential merit. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing court, and not appointed counsel, determines whether case is “frivolous” after full examination of proceedings); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510–11 (quoting Anders). If we conclude, after conducting an independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in assaying the record for error” and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Crowe v. State, 595 S.W.3d 317, 319 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (quoting Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)).

Washington presents three issues1 asserting the trial court did not err 1) in sentencing Washington to twelve years or 2) making the deadly weapon findings and 3) “other matters do not provide non-frivolous issues for appeal.”

The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders. It presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there were no arguable

Counsel outlines the three issues as “Arguable Ground for Review.” Because we conclude counsel’s issues are contentions that might arguably support the appeal, but which counsel has concluded are nonmeritorious, these issues are appropriate for an Anders submission. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000). –2– grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to file a pro se response; he did not file a response. We also have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 220583F.U05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT QUINCEY DOMINIQUE On Appeal from the 196th Judicial WASHINGTON, Appellant District Court, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 33694CR.

No. 05-22-00583-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Garcia and Miskel THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 30th day of January 2024.

–4–