1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO. 09
- 19
- 00191
- CR NO. 09
- 19
- 00192
- CR

__________________ AUSTIN BLAKE CATES, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 159th District Court Angelina County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 2018
- 0698; 2018
- 0700

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State indicted Austin Blake Cates for crimes resulting from three separate
criminal transactions : Burglary of a Habitation , Robbery , and Possession of a Controlled Substance

. 1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § § 30.02 (a), (d ), 29

. 02. On March 11, 2019, Cate s pl ed no contest to the charge of Burglary of Habitation and g uilty to

1 Cates does not appeal his conviction for P ossession of a C ontrolled S ubstance.2 the charge of Robbery without the benefit of a plea agreement

. 2 At the hearing, the
trial court admonished Cates that he had a right to a jury trial and that by pleading guilty to the c harges, he was waiving his right to appeal his guilty convictions. Cates
also signed written plea admonishments that were admitted into evidence

. On April 25 , 2019 , after conducting a bench hearing as to punishment , t he
trial court sentenced Cates to serv e 15 years of incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for Burglary of Habitation,
and 18 years of incarceration for Robbery

. The trial court also ordered that the sentences run concurrently

. The trial court c ertified that this was not a plea

- bargain

case as to punishment and that Cates had the right of appeal. Cates timely filed
notice s of appeal in each of the two cases

. The attorney appointed to represent Cates in h is appeal filed an Anders brief which asserted that the attorney diligently reviewed the record and found no meritorious claims on which to appeal Cate s ’s sentence s and that any appeal is
frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45 (1967); High v. State , 573
S.W.2d 8 07, 810

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel served Cates with a copy of the Anders brief filed on h is behalf. This Court notified Cates of h is right

2 The trial court combine d all of Cates ’s cases at his plea hearing and later heard evidence regarding punishment for all cases in one hearing

.3 to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for doing so. This Court did not
receive a pro se response. We have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 91) (stating that the reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist). The Court concludes it is unnecessary for us to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief this appeal. Cf. id . As no arguable grounds exist to support the a ppeal, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. 3
AFFIRMED.

_________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice
Submitted on December 16, 2019 Opinion Delivered January 22, 20 20 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

3 Cates may challenge our opinion in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.