HORACE JAMES HAMLETT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 36th District Court of Bee County

 NUMBER 13-05-657-CR

 COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI  - EDINBURG

HORACE JAMES HAMLETT, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant, Horace James Hamlett, appeals his conviction of injury to an elderly individual. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.04 (Vernon Supp. 2005). Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense. A jury found appellant guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at 10 years= imprisonment and imposed a $5,000.00 fine. 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 concludes that two possible issues exist for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel's brief further concludes that the issues lack merit and any appeal in this case would be frivolous. See id. The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See 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. More than thirty days have passed and no pro se brief has been filed.

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 counsel=s brief and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. See id.; 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 22nd day of June, 2006.