NO. 07-10-0011-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL A NOVEMBER 9, 2010

BERNIE MAC WALL AKA BERNIE MACK WALL, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 355 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY; NO. CR11138; HONORABLE RALPH H. WALTON, JR., JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Bernie Mac Wall a/k/a Bernie Mack Wall, was convicted by a jury of attempted kidnapping, enhanced by prior fel ony convictions, for aggravated sexual assault by threats of violence and force, bu rglary of a vehicle, and theft from a person. 1 He was sentenced to twenty years confin ement and fined ten thousand dollars. In

1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 20.03 (Vernon 2003); Id. at §§ 12.35(c), 12.42(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2010).2 presenting his appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 2 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel's motion and affirm.
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). Counse l has also demonstrated 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 his right to file a pro se response 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 Neither the State nor A ppellant filed a response to counsel's brief.
By his Anders brief , counsel raises two arguable issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally and factually suffici ent to support the trial court's judgment 4 and (2)

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

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. Tex. R. App. P. 48.4. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.2d at 408 n.22 & 411 n.35.

4 See Brooks v. State , No. PD-0210-09, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. L EXIS 1240, at *57 (Tex.Crim.App. Oct. 6, 2010) (abandoning factual sufficiency as an evidentiary sufficiency standard).3 whether the trial court erred by permitting a state jail felony offense to be punished as a second degree felony. Counsel then candi dly reviews each arguable issue and explains why no reversible error is presented.
We have reviewed counsel's argument s and we have independ ently examined the entire record to determine whether ther e are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 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.App. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969) . After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (T ex.Crim.App. 2005).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdr aw is granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish.