                                 NO. 07-11-00043-CR

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                    AT AMARILLO

                                       PANEL A

                                  JANUARY 5, 2012


                    RONE NUNEZ AKA RONI NUNEZ, APPELLANT

                                           v.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


            FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY;

          NO. 09-1150-K26; HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE


Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.


                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Rone Nunez, was convicted of capital murder1 in a trial before the

court after the State had waived the death penalty.         He was sentenced to life

imprisonment without parole. 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




      1
          See TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.31(a)(2), 19.03 (West 2011).
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 did not file a

response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all 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.2


                                                       Mackey K. Hancock
                                                            Justice


Do not publish.

       2
        Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

                                            2
