David Bruce Miller, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 176th District Court of Harris County

 NUMBER 13-05-101-CR

 COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI  - EDINBURG

DAVID BRUCE MILLER, JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 176th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant, David Bruce Miller, Jr., appeals his conviction of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '' 12.32, 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2003). Appellant=s conviction was enhanced with two prior felony convictions. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '' 22.02(a)(2), 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offense. Appellant pleaded true to the two enhancement paragraphs and the jury sentenced him to forty years= imprisonment. Appellant now appeals the judgment of the trial court. We affirm.

I. Anders Brief

Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief with this Court, in which he states that he has reviewed the record and in which he concludes that appellant has no non frivolous grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Although counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel certifies that he has served a copy of his brief on appellant and informed appellant of his right to file a pro se brief. We conclude counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. On June 9, 2005, this Court granted appellant=s motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief. Appellant was given until July 25, 2005 to file his brief. This deadline has passed and no pro se brief has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6.

II. Independent Review

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and find that there are no reversible grounds of error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

III. Motion to Withdraw

In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant his motion to withdraw. We further order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 9th day of February, 2006.