                    In The
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
        ______________________________

              No. 06-10-00238-CR
        ______________________________


      DEONTRA TERREL MASON, Appellant

                          V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




   On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court
               Fannin County, Texas
           Trial Court No. CR-10-23445




     Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Deontra Terrel Mason appeals from his conviction in a trial before the court for assault on

a family member, with prior convictions. The trial court found him guilty, found the alleged

enhancements true, and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

          Mason’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the

proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503

(Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

          Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Mason on June 29, 2011, informing

Mason of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. No response has

been filed. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

          We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.         We have independently

reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See

Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel’s assessment

that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005).




                                                   2
         We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1




                                                        Bailey C. Moseley
                                                        Justice

Date Submitted:             September 12, 2011
Date Decided:               September 13, 2011

Do Not Publish




1
 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should
appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain
an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last
timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.3 (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104, effective Sept. 1, 2011).
Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

                                                            3
