Opinion filed January 20 , 201 7



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 08 3

- CR

____ _ ______ 

### JACOB ANDREW WALLING , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 238 th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. CR45673

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Based upon open plea s of guilty, the trial court convicted Jac ob Andrew Walling of the offense s of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault on a public

servant , both first

- degree felon ies

. The trial court held a hearing as to punishment, made an affirmative deadly weapon finding in each cause, found the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for thirty

years for each offense, to run concurrently

. We dismiss the appeal.2

Appe llant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable l aw and conclude s that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the brief , the motion to withdraw, the reporter’s record, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.
Counsel also advised A ppellant of his righ t to review the record and file a response
to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. 1
Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an o pinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bl edsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3 d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal

1 T his c ourt granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise h is right to file a response to counsel’s brief.3

Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se pe tition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIA M

January 20 , 2017 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.