
NO. 07-06-0241-CR



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL C



JULY 25, 2007

______________________________



TOMMY JOE VASQUEZ, APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________



FROM THE 121
ST
 DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;



NO. 5428; HONORABLE KELLY G. MOORE, JUDGE

_______________________________





Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to twenty years.  Appellant’s plea was entered after the trial court had overruled a motion to suppress appellant’s written statement.  The trial court certified appellant’s right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress his written statement.  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
(footnote: 1) and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

        Justice





Do not publish.  

FOOTNOTES
1: In granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, however, we remind counsel to insure that he has complied with the “educational” duty to inform appellant of his right to file a 
pro se 
petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals.  
Ex parte Owens
, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).


