## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00081

- CR

JOHN FITZGERALD DAVIS, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 48028

- A

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Fitzgerald Davis entered an open plea of guilty and judicially confessed to unlawful
possession of a firearm by a felon and was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to six years’
imprisonment.

Davis’ appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of th e case , summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding
that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California and has p rovided a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. See 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High

v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion
with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Davis, provided him with a copy of the record, and

advised Davis of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response . Davis filed a p ro se

m otion for a ccess to a ppellate r ecord, which we granted
, and notified Davis that his pro s e response
was due October 31, 2019. Davis filed neither a pro se response n or a motion for extension of

time to file such a response. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have reviewed the entire
appellate record and have independ ently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v.3 State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine
that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the tri al court's judgment

. 1

Ralph K. Burgess Justice

Date Submitted : Dec ember 3, 2019 Date Decided: December 13 , 2019

Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointe d. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition f or discretionary review (1) must be filed within 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, s ee T EX

. R. A PP

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

. R. A PP

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

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.