
NO. 07-08-0196-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MAY 28, 2009
______________________________

JESUS PERALES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

NO. 1067039D; HONORABLE MOLLEE WESTFALL

AND WILLIAM BRIGHAM, JUDGES
_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
          Appellant, Jesus Perales, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault
causing serious bodily injury.  Appellant also pleaded true to one prior felony enhancement. 
Subsequently, the trial court, after conducting a punishment hearing and receiving a pre-sentence report, assessed appellant’s punishment at 40 years confinement in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  This appeal followed. 
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 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 judgment.  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 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.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
judgment is affirmed.

 
                                                                           Mackey K. Hancock
                                                                                     Justice 


Do not publish. 
