
NO. 07-05-0263-CR

NO. 07-05-0264-CR

NO. 07-05-0265-CR

NO. 07-05-0266-CR



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL A



MAY 24, 2006



______________________________





MIGUEL A. TIJERINA, APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE





_________________________________



FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;



NOS. 2004-407714, 2005-408363, 2005-408364 & 2005-408365; 



HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE



_______________________________



Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 Following an open plea of guilty, appellant Miguel A. Tijerina was convicted of four counts of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to 20 years confinement.  In presenting this appeal,
 counsel has filed an 
Anders
(footnote: 1) brief in support of a motion to withdraw.  We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1984, no pet.).
 Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment.  Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit.  In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a 
pro se
 response if he desired to do so.  Appellant did not file a response.  Neither did the State favor us with a brief.

By his 
Anders
 brief, counsel raises several grounds that could arguably support an appeal.  
We have reviewed these grounds 
and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  
See
  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005).  We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel's motions to withdraw are hereby granted and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

Don H. Reavis

    Justice



Do not publish.
 

FOOTNOTES
1:Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).


