NO. 07-05-0066-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A AUGUST 2, 2005

______________________________ MARCEL DOMINIQUE MCARTHUR, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 27 TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY; NO. 53413 ; HONORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUD O, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and H ANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

Marcel Dominique McArthur appeals from an adjudication of guilt for the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and punishment of confinement for 20 years. Weaffirm. Appellant

was charged by indic

tment with the offen se of agg ravated a ssault w ith a deadlyweapon . Pursua nt to a pl ea agree ment with the State, appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of

guilty. The trial court accepted the plea of guilty, found that the evidence substantia ted appell ant’s guilt, followed the plea agreement and, on March 19,2

2003, de ferred adjudication of appellant and placed appel lant on community supervision for 10 yea rs. Appe llant di d not app eal from t he procee dings.
On September 9, 2004, the State filed a Motion to Proceed With Adjudication of Guilt
on Original Charge. A hearin g on th e m otion was conducted on November 17, 2004. Appellant

pled true to allegations contained in paragraphs C throu gh L o f the motion. Appellant

pled not true to the allegations in paragraphs A and B of the motion, but thetrial court found those allegations to be true. Follow ing a separate punishment hearing, the court sentenced appellant to confinement in the Institutiona l Div ision of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 20 years. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a Brief in Support thereof. In suppor tof the motion, counsel has certified that, in complian ce with Andersv. California , 386 U.S

. 738, 7 44-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the record has been dilige ntly revi ewed. Co unsel ha s conclu ded th e rec ord reflects no reversible error or grounds upon which a non-frivolous appea l can arguably be predicated. Counsel thus con cludes th at the ap peal is frivolou s.
In reaching the conclusion that the appeal i s frivolous, counsel ide ntifies one possible issue. That i ssue is the denial of appellant’s right of confrontation and crossexaminat ion by th e admissi on of an out-of-cou rt testimo nial sta tement of a co-acto r. How ever, after referencing, analyzing and discussing the trial record, co uns el ha s discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no arguably reversibleerror in the trial court’s j udgment. See High v. S tate , 5 73 S.W 2d 80 7, 813 (T ex.Crim. App. 197 8).3

Counsel’s brief demonstrates a con scientio us review of the entire record and analysis of the legal issues involved in a p otential appeal.
Counsel has attached exhibits showing that a copy o f the Andersbrief and Motion to Withdraw have been forwarded to appellant, and thatcounsel has appropriately advised appellant

of his ri ght to rev iew the r ecord and file a re sponse to counsel ’s motion and brief. Appellant has not filed a response.
We have made an independent examin ation of t he record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds meriting appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1 988); Stafford v . State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such gr ounds. We a gree that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, cou nsel ’s Motion to Withdraw is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not pu blish.