1 Jo hn T. Boy d, Chief Justice (Ret.), S eventh Cour t of Appeals, sit

ting by assignment. Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. §75.002( a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003). NO. 07-02-0323-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E AUGUST 13, 2003

______________________________ ROBERT STEVEN LAND, APPEL LANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 108 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F POTT ER COUNTY; NO. 45,142-E; H ONORABLE ABE LO PEZ, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., REAVIS, J., an d BOYD, S.J. 1 On June 24, 2002, after h is plea of gui lty and the receipt of testimon y, appellant Robert Steven Land was found guilty of the state jail felony offense of evadi ng detention while using a vehicle. Hi s punishment was assessed by

the trial court at 12 months confinement in a state jail facility. Appellant timely gave notice of appea l.2

Appellant’s appellate couns el has now filed an Andersbrief wit h this court in which he states that he has thoroughly examined the trial record and determined the ap peal is without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 -45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (19 67), and High v. State , 573S.W.2d 8 07 ( Tex . Cr im. A pp. 1 978) . In the b rie f, counsel discusses four

potential is sues on appeal and e xplains w hy the re cord shows that none of those issues p resent reversible er ror. In the b rief, counsel has att ached a co py of his letter

to appellant, forw

arded a copy of the brief and advised him of h is right to file a pro se brie f. He has also fil ed a motion to w ithdraw a nd notified appellant that he has filed the motion. See Johnson v. Sta te , 885 S.W .2d 6 41 (T ex. App.–Waco 19 94, pet. ref’ d). Nei ther

appe lla nt or

the S tatehas file d a brief. Before all owi ng couns el to wi thdr aw, we must

first sa tis fy

ourselve s that the attorney has provided the client w ith a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client’s appe al, and then we must determine whether counsel has correctly

concluded the appea l is frivolous. See McCoy v. Court of Appeal s of Wisconsin , 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2 d 440 (1988). Each of the issues r

aised in the Andersbrief by cou nsel address whether appe llant was deni ed re ason ably e ff ecti ve assistance of counsel be cause his trial couns el: 1) failed to seek excl usion of other w itnesses from the courtroom until they were called to testi fy, 2) failed to cross-examine the State ’s witnesses, and 3) failed to raise hearsay obj ections thatwould have prevented t he admission of testimony about statements made by

absent witnesses

that corrobor

ated the State’s evidence.3

The brief file d by appella te counsel dis cusses the tr ial evid ence with appropriate references to the record

. S ee Hig h , 573 S.W.2d at 813 (noting req uirement that tr ial couns el discus s evidence). The test for inef fective assistance of coun sel set out in S trickland

v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104S.Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed.2d 674 (1984) an d adopted by our C ourt of Crimina l Appeals in Hernandez v. State , 726 S.W.2d 53, 5 7 (Te x. Crim. App. 1986) , contains tw o prongs. Under the first prong, an appellant must show that t rial counsel ’s performance w as “deficient.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. That requir es a showing that counsel made errors so serious that he was not functioning as the “counsel” guara nteed a de fendant by the Sixth Ame ndment to the Federal Constitutio n. Id . To be su ccessf ul in this rega rd, a n appellant

must show

that his tri al counsel’s

representati on fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id . at 688. Under the second prong , an appellan t must show that the deficien t performance prejudiced the defense. I d

. at 687. The standard for judging prejudice r equires an appellant

to show tha t there is a reasonable proba bility th a t but for counsel’s unpro fessi onal errors, t he result of the pr oceeding w

ould have been d ifferent. A reasonable probability

is one sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. at 694. To be entitled toreversa l, an appellant must establish both prongs of the test. White v. State , 999 S.W .2d 895 (Tex. App.–Am arillo 1999, pet. ref’d).4

We have also madean independent examinat ion of the record to determine if there are any arguable grounds that might support the app eal. See Penson v. Ohio , 88 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) , and Stafford v. Sta te , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 11 (T ex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such g rounds and agr ee with coun sel that

the appeal is without

merit and is frivolous. Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Acco rdin gly, the judgment of the trial cour t is af firmed and counsel’ s motion to withdraw is granted. John T. Bo yd Senior Justice Do not publish

.