                                   NO. 12-19-00166-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

 ANANDO LAMORRIS ROBERT,                           §      APPEAL FROM THE 3RD
 APPELLANT

 V.                                                §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

 THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 APPELLEE                                          §      HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Anando Lamorris Robert appeals his conviction for assault causing serious bodily injury.
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Appellant filed a pro se response. We affirm.


                                          BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Pursuant to an open plea, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the lesser offense of assault causing serious
bodily injury. In exchange, the State abandoned the deadly weapon allegation and agreed to “cap”
the possible sentence at fourteen years. The State also considered and dismissed a second count
and two other charges against Appellant. Following a punishment trial, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to fourteen years imprisonment. This appeal followed.


                        ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
       Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he has reviewed the record and found no arguable grounds
for appeal. 1 In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced.
         Appellant contends in his pro se response that since entering the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, his offense has been treated “as an aggravated factor” when the trial court advised
him that it would not be “treated (Aggravated) or (3-G) offense.”
         When faced with an Anders brief and a pro se response by an appellant, an appellate court
can either (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it
has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) determine that arguable grounds for
appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief
the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).


                                                  CONCLUSION
         After conducting an independent examination of the record, we find no reversible error and
conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
         As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the
merits and now grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.
         As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion
or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP.


         1
          In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).


                                                          2
P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with
the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
408 n.22.
Opinion delivered February 19, 2020.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.




                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)


                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                         FEBRUARY 19, 2020


                                         NO. 12-19-00166-CR


                                ANANDO LAMORRIS ROBERT,
                                         Appellant
                                            V.
                                   THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                         Appellee


                                  Appeal from the 3rd District Court
                     of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CCR17-0337-3)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                       It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J,
