
NOS.  07-07-0088-CR

         07-07-0089-CR



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL A



MARCH 25, 2008

______________________________



FELIPE HERNANDEZ, JR., APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________



FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;



NO. 15,436-B, 15,437-B; HONORABLE JOHN BOARD, JUDGE

_______________________________





Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Felipe Hernandez, Jr., was convicted of aggravated robbery in two causes and received seven year sentences in both cases, with the imposition of the sentences being suspended for a period of ten years.  The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke appellant’s probation in both causes alleging that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of probation by committing a new offense.  The trial court subsequently found the allegations in the State’s motion to revoke probation true and sentenced appellant to concurrent terms of seven years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  We affirm.

Appellant’s attorney has filed an 
Anders
 brief and a motion to withdraw.  
Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated.  
Id
. at 744-45.  In compliance with 
High v. State
, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgments.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the 
Anders
 brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a 
pro se
 response in this matter.  
Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a 
pro se
 response.  Appellant has not filed a response
.

By his 
Anders
 brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.
  We have 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, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); 
Bledsoe v. State
, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.



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



Mackey K. Hancock

          Justice







Do not publish.  

