Steven Harold Bettes v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 176th District Court of Harris County

 NUMBER 13-05-00473-CR

 COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI  B EDINBURG

STEVEN HAROLD BETTES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

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

 MEMORANDUM OPINION

 Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

A jury found appellant, Steven Harold Bettes, guilty of the offense of robbery, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, and the trial court assessed appellant=s punishment at thirty years= imprisonment.

A. Anders Brief

Appellant=s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief, asserting there is no basis for this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In the brief, counsel states that she has reviewed the clerk=s record and reporter=s record and has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. 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). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there are no errors in the trial court=s judgment. In the brief, appellant=s counsel certifies that she has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Appellant filed a pro se brief raising the following issues: (1) failure to conduct a competency hearing; (2) legal and factual sufficiency; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) improper commitment questions during voir dire.

B. Independent Review of Record

Upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief, the appellate court must conduct Aa full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@ Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 312, 313 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2004, no pet.). We have carefully reviewed the appellate record, counsel=s brief, and appellant=s pro se brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support this appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court=s judgment.

C. Anders Counsel

In accordance with Anders, counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. An appellate court may grant a counsel=s motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief. Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511 (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request for withdrawal from case). We grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.

We order counsel to advise appellant promptly of the disposition of this case and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 27th day of July, 2006.