### NUMBER S 1 3

- 1 6

- 00 191

- CR & 13

- 1 6

- 00 192

- CR


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

JOHN GIBBS , Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 1 76 th District Court of Harris County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION 1



### Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

In appellate cause numbers 13

- 16

- 00191

- CR and 13

- 16

- 192

- CR, appellant John
Gibbs pleaded guilty to two separate counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.

1 Th ese ca uses are before the Court on transfer from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 49
, 2017 R.S.).2

See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 29.03 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 49
, 2017 R.S.). The trial

court sentenced Gibbs to twenty

- five years’ confinement in both causes, which will run

concurrent ly . Gibbs’s court

- appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. A NDERS B RIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California , Gibbs’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has
filed with this Court in both causes a motion to withdraw and a brief stating that his review
of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a
professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on
appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas,

an Anders brie f need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds
none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set
out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

– 44 (Tex.
Ap p.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) , Gibbs’s
counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error
in the trial court’s judgment. Gibbs’s counsel has also informed this Court that Gibbs has
been (1) notified that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2)
provided with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed of his rights to file a pro se response,
review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if we3

conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided with a form motion for pro se access
to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders
, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly

, 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20, Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also

In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 4 09 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has
passed, and Gibbs has not filed a pro se response. 2

II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have
found nothing that would argu ably support an appeal. 3 See id. at 827

– 28 (“Due to the

nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in
the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals
met the requ irement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d
at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in each cause.

III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders , Gibb s ’s attorney has asked this Court for permission

to withdraw as counsel. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252
S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

– 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas

2 The Texas Court of C riminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should cons ider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

– 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).

3 We note that there is a video marked St ate’s exhibit #4 in the record that we were unable to view due to technical issues. However, the trial court sustained Gibbs’ s objection to the video and did not consider it when making its decision in these causes.4

1995, no pet.) (“[I]f an attorney belie ves the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from
representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must
file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the
appeal is frivolous.”) (citat ions omitted)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within
five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this
opinion and this Court’s judgment to Gibbs and to advise him of his right to file a petition

for discre tionary review. 4 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d
at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006 ).

/s/ Rogelio Valde z ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice

Do Not Publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 3rd day of August, 201 7

.

4 No substitute counsel will be appoint ed. Should Gibbs wis h to seek further review of these case s by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discret ionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was o verruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. A petition for discretion ary review must be filed with the clerk o f the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.