### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 19
- 00206
- CR DEVANTE JEFFERSON , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 17
- 02624
- CRF
- 272

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Devante Jefferson entered plea s of guilty to four counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The issue of punishment was tried to a jury which assessed punishment at thirty

- five years ’ incarceration on each count.
Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 13 96, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jefferson ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirementsJefferson v. State Page 2

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, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifi cally 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. App.

— 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), Jefferson’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, ther e is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment s . Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Jefferson ; and (3)
informed Jefferson of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 1 See
Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Jefferson
has not filed a pro se response. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determ ine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 350, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See

1 Counsel has informed this Court that he has provided the appellate record to Jefferson

. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 321

- 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).Jefferson v. State Page 3

Bledsoe v. St ate , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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 t he requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. The judgment s of the trial court are therefore affirmed.
In accordance with Anders , Jefferson’s attorney has asked this Court for permission
to withdraw as counsel f or Jefferson

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

- 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must
withdraw f rom 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.”)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Within fiv e 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 Jefferson and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

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

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Jefferson wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for dis cretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or from the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition and all cop ies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate P rocedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.Jefferson v. State Page 4 REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed November 27, 2019 Do not publish [CRPM]