NO. 07-11-0292-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C MAY 9, 2012

__________________ ____________ THOMAS DESHONE, JR., APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

__________________ _______________ FROM THE 364 TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2009-423,867; HONORABLE BR ADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

__________________ _____________ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, T homas Deshone, Jr., was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. 1 Punishment was assessed at five years confinement. In presenti ng this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 2 brief in support of a motion to wit hdraw. We grant counsel = s motion and affirm.

1 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04(a) (West 2011).

2 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).2 In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion , the record reflects no potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has dem onstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of hi s right to file a pro se res ponse if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408. 3 By letter, this Court grant ed Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel = s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the St ate favor us with a brief.
Appellant was convicted of a prior felony offense on September 11, 2008. After serving his sentence on that offense, he and other family members were gathered at his mother's home. A "misunderstanding" aros e between himself and his father, Thomas Deshone, Sr. According to Deshone, Sr., also a felon who had been released a few months earlier, Appell ant displayed a gun and threatened him during the "misunderstanding." Deshone, Sr . testified that he then exit ed the house and placed a 911 call out of concern for family members. When the first officer responded, he asked

3 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review upon execution of the Trial Court = s Certification of Defendant = s Right of Appeal , counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22 & at 411 n.35.3 Appellant to step outside and patted him down. No weapons were found on his person. After a backup officer arrived, the first o fficer entered the house and found a gun on the couch under a pillow. Appellant was ch arged with aggravated assault against his father; however, his father later signed an a ffidavit of non-prosecut ion. Appellant was then indicted for intentionally or knowingly possessing a firearm before the fifth anniversary of his release from confi nement following a felony conviction.
Appellant suffers from paranoid schizophren ia and is under a doctor's care. He was examined and found competent to stand tria l. His parents were subpoenaed by the prosecution. Deshone, Sr. te stified reluctantly, but testim ony was elicited in support of the charged offense. Appellant 's mother testifi ed unwillingly and seem ed to struggle in recalling events when questioned by the pros ecution. Her memory improved when questioned by the defense. The defense sti pulated that Appellant had a prior felony conviction.
Appellant's defensive theory wa s that the firearm did not belong to him but could have possibly belonged to his father, a fel on who did not want to risk being found in possession of the firearm. However, the re sponding officer testified that based on his interview with Appellant's parents, his opini on was that Appellant possessed the firearm on the date in question.
By the Anders brief, counsel raises three possible points of error alleging error by the trial court in (1) admitting an audio record ing of a 911 telephone call, (2) admitting the firearm seized at t he scene of the offense, 4 and (3) misdirecting t he jury and error in

4 We review a trial court's decision to admit evidence over objection under an abuse of discretion standard. McCarty v.State , 257 S.W.3d 238, 239 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008).4 the court's charge. 5 Counsel then candidly conclude s that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its evidenti ary rulings and potential error, if any, was rendered harmless. Counsel likewise concludes there was no reversible error in the jury charge.
We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appe al including pretrial motions, voir dire, the trial proceedings, arguments, the jury charge and sentencing. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.A pp. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing the record and counsel = s brief, we agree with co unsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to wit hdraw is granted and the trial court = s judgment is affirmed

.
Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not publish.

5 When, as here, there is no objection to the court's ch arge, we review the charge for "egregious error." See Almanza v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 172 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). See also Chaney v. State , 314 S.W.3d 561, 568 (Tex.App.--Ama rillo 2010, pet. ref'd).