                                  NO. 07-11-00504-CR

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                     AT AMARILLO

                                        PANEL B

                                     JUNE 8, 2012


                           ALFREDO PECINA, APPELLANT

                                            v.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


                FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

          NO. B17667-0806; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID JR., JUDGE


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


                               MEMORANDUM OPINION


      Appellant, Alfredo Pecina, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon.1 Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant was placed on

deferred adjudication for a period of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to

adjudicate appellant. The first motion to adjudicate was dismissed. Later, the State

filed another motion to adjudicate appellant guilty and, subsequently, amended the

second motion to adjudicate. Appellant pleaded “True,” without benefit of any plea


      1
          See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011).
bargain, to nearly all of the allegations presented against him. After finding appellant

guilty of aggravated assault, the trial court conducted a hearing on punishment. The

trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for eleven years.          This appeal followed

appellant’s conviction. 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 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.
                                            2
      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.

                                            3
