NOS. 07-11-00226-CR; 07-11-00227-CR; 07 -11-00228-CR; 07-11-00229-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL B FEBRUARY 13, 2012

IRVIN WILLIS VEALE, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; NOS. 62,127-E, 62,128-E, 62,129-E, 63,344-E; HONORABLE DOUGLAS WOODBURN, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Irvin Willis Veale, appeals his th ree convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child 1 and one conviction for indecency with a child. 2 After finding appellant guilty of the offenses noted, t he jury assessed a sentence of confinement of 20 years in the Institutional Divisi on of the Texas Department of Crim inal Justice (ID-TDCJ) on each of the aggravated sexual assault convictions and a term of confinement in the ID-TDCJ

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2011).

2 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 21.11(a)(1) (West 2011).2 of five years on the indecency with a child conviction. Based upon the jury’s verdicts on punishment, the trial court or dered the confinement on the aggravated sexual assault cases to be served concurrently and the conf inement on the indecen cy with a child case to be served consecutively, following t he completion of the confinement on the aggravated sexual assault cases. We affirm.
Appellant = s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reve rsible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no e rror in the trial court = s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appe llant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a
response. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to dete rmine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 8243 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have f ound no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel = s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court = s judgment is affirmed. 3

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed do wn, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with not ification of appellant = s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4.