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

No. 07 - 18 - 00165 - CR
GARY ANDERSON GILLIS , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas 1 Trial Court No. 2017 - 1078 - C2, Honorable Matt Johnson, Presiding



### July 26 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. Appellant, Gary Anderson Gillis, was charged with the offense of assault family violence by occlusion , 2 enhanced by two prior felony convictions. 3 Appellant pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to a jury trial. During the presentation of evidence,

1 Pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization efforts, this case was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 73.001 (West 2013).

2 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22. 01 (a)(1), (b)(2) (West 201 9 ).
3 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 12.42(d) (West 201 9 ).2

appellant , without any plea bargain agreement, changed his plea to guilty. He entered plea s of “true” to both enhancement allegations

. He was subse quently convicted and sentenced to seventy - five years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 4 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulm an , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s jud gment. Counsel notified appellant by letter of his motion to withdraw; provided him a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not f iled a pro se response. The State has not filed a brief. By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determin e whether there are any non
- frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support this appeal but, like counsel, we have

4 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).3

found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schul man , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex

. Crim. App. 1969). After carefully reviewing the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw 5 and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Judy C. Parker Justice Do not publish.

5 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists a fter the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.