## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00075

- CR

NORMAN CHARLES ROBERTS, III , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 22

- 03 23X

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

N orman Charles Roberts, III , entered an open plea of guilty to burglary of a building.
After a presentence invest igati on report an d addit ional evidence w ere received, the trial court
sentenced Roberts to twenty months ’ confinement in state jail

. This appeal followed.
Roberts ’ s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of th e case, provided a d etailed summa ry of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of
Anders v. California , counsel provided a professional evaluati on of the re cord demonstratin g why t her e are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig . proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (T ex. Cri m. App. 1991); High v. Stat e , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Roberts ’ s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and pro vided Roberts with cop ies of the brie f , th e appellate re cord , and the motion to
withdra w. Counsel also informed Roberts of h is right s to review the appellate record and to file

a pro se response
. On August 2, 2023 , we notified Roberts that his pro se response was due on Septembe r 1, 2023

. By letter da ted September 13, 2023 , we notified Ro berts that the case would
be submitted on briefs on October 4, 2023

. Roberts did not file a pro se response.3

We reviewed the enti re appellate record an d independently determined that no reversible
error exists. Se e Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 2 7 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the judgment of the trial c ourt

. 1

Scott E. Stevens Justice Date Submitted: October 4, 2023 Date Decided: Octobe r 5 , 202 3
Do No t Publish

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accord ance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitut e counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek fu rther review of this case by the Texas C ourt of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary revi ew. Any petition for discreti onary review (1) must be filed wit hin thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of C riminal Appeals, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requ irements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.