## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07

- 14

- 00354

- CR

HECTOR LEE GLORIA, A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 242nd District Court

Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. B19686

- 1406, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding



### May 7 , 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant Hector Lee Gloria was indicted for the state jail felony offense of possession of five pounds or less but more than four ounces of marijuana. 1 He entered an open plea of guilty which the trial court accepted. A jury assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in a state jail facility and a fine o f $7,500. The court pronounced sentence accordingly. Appellant timely appealed. His court

- appointed appellate

1 T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.121(b) (West 2010 ).2

attorney has filed a motion to withdraw from the representation supported by an Anders brief. 2 Agreeing with appointed counsel’s conclusion that the record fails to show any arguably meritorious issue capable of supporting the appeal, we will affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In his Anders brief, counsel demonstrates a thorough review of the reco rd. He certifies the case presents no reversible error and no grounds exist for predicating an appeal . The brief discusses the procedural history of the case, appellant’ s plea of guilty, and the hearing befor e the jury concerning appellant’ s punishment. In a letter to appellant , counsel states he provided appellant with a copy of his m otion to with draw and Anders brief as well as a copy of the record and notified him of his right to file a pro

se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 , 320 n.22 ( T ex. Crim. App. 2014); Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1994, pet. refuse d). By letter, we also notified appellant of his opportunity to submit a response to the Anders brief

. Appellant did not file a response.
In conformity with the sta ndards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we will not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Should we determine the appeal has m erit, the case will be remanded to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding)

.3

We have independently examined the entire record to determine the existence of any arguable grounds capable o f supporting an appeal. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Agreeing with appellate counsel, we find the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw 3 and affirm the judgment of the trial court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(b).

James T. Campbell Justice

Do not publ ish

.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along wit h notification of the defendant’ s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4.