NOS. 07-07 -021 5-CR 07-0 7-02 16-CR 07-0 7-02 17-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU LY10, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ LONNIE R. BLA CK, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO S. 2 007- 415379, 2007- 415380, 2007- 415381; H ON ORABLE BRAD LEY S. UN DE RW OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Lonni e R . Bl ack , pl eaded g uil ty , w it hout benefit of a pl ea barg ain , t o three s e p a ra t e in d ic t m e n t s , e a c h a ll e gi n g c o m m is s io n o f t h e o f fe n s e o f ro b b e ry. Su b s e qu e n t ly, appel lan t was sent enced to li fe impr is onment in the Tex as Depa rt ment of C ri minal Ju sti ceIn s ti tu ti on al D i v i s i on . A l l s en te nc esa re to b e s er v ed c on c ur ren tl y . W e affi r m.2

A p p e ll a n t ’s a tt o rn e y h a s f il e d a n A n d e rs b ri e f a n d a m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. An d e rs v. Cal ifor nia , 386 U .S. 738, 87 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d. 2d 498 (1 967)
. In suppo rtof hismoti on to w it hdraw , couns el cer ti fies that he hasdi li g entl y rev iewed th e record, an d i n hi s o pin ion , the rec ord reflects no rev ersi ble error upon w hic h an appeal can be predi cat ed. Id. at 74 4- 45. In compl ian ce w it h Hi g h v . St ate, 573 S. W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1978) , c ounse l has candi dly

di sc uss ed w hy , und er

the cont ro ll ing auth or it ies , there is no er ro r in the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment. Addi ti onal ly , c ounse l has cer ti fied that he has prov ide d appel lan t a copy of the And ers b ri ef and moti on to w it hdraw and appropr iat ely

adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht to fil e a pro serespon se in thi s matter
. Stafford v . St a te , 8 1 3 S .W .2d 5 03, 5 10 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1991)
. The cour t hasal so adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o f ile a pro se re spons e. Al thoug h, ap pel lan t re quested and was g ra nted an extens ion of ti me to file a pro serespon se, appel lan t hasnot filed a respon se. By his And ers brief , coun sel raises groun ds tha t could p ossibly sup port an a ppe al, but c oncl udes the a ppeal i s fr ivolo us. W e hav e rev iewed th e se grounds and made an inde pen den t rev iew of the ent ire record to det ermin e w het her there are a n y a rgua ble g ro unds w hic h mig ht suppo rtan a ppeal
. See P enson v . O hio , 488 U .S. 75, 1 09 S. Ct . 346 , 1 0 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 3 0 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; B l e d s o e v . S t a t e , 1 7 8 S
. W. 3 d 8 2 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 )
. W e have foun d no such arguable groun ds an d agree w ith cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is f rivolou s.Cou nsel sh all , w it hin fiv e days a fter t he opi nio n i s h anded dow n, send h iscl ien t a 1 copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of the defendant’ s r ig ht t o fil e a pro sepeti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 8.4.

3 Acc ordi ng l y , c ou ns el ’ s mo ti on t o w i th draw i s h ereb y

g ran te d an d th e tr i al c ou rt’s jud g ment i s a ff ir med. 1
Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.