## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 15 - 00257 - CR No. 07 - 15 - 00258 - CR

________________________ MICHAEL D. THOMAS AKA MICHAEL THOMAS , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE
On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas 1 Tri a l Court No s . 1370095D and 1370096D ; Honorable Wayne Salvant , Presiding
December 30 , 201 5 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Based on open pleas of guilty , Appellant, Michael D. Thomas aka Michael Thomas, was convicted of two counts of attempted robbery , lesser included offense s of

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Second Court of Appeal s and that of this court on any relevant issue. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 41.3.2

the offenses charged, and sentenced to concurrent seven year terms of confinement. 2 In presenting th ese appeal s , Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders 3 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw

. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of b oth record s , and in his opinion, the y reflect no potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction s . 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 record s support that conclusion. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated he has complied with the requirements of Anders and I n re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying h im of h is right to review the record s and file a pro se response if he desired to do so, 4 and (3) informing h im of h is right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408. 5 By letter, this c ourt granted

2 Appellant was initially charged with robbery, a second degree felony, T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 29.02(a)(1) (West 20 11 ), but was convicted of the lesser included offense, a third degree felony. Id . at § 15.01(d).

3 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
4 See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (regarding Appellant’s right of access to the record for purposes of filing a pro se r esponse).

5 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of h is 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 s together with notification of h is right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22 & 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of this court’s decision is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 4 11 n.33.3

Appellant an opportunity to exercise h is right to file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor u s with a brief

. B ACKGROUND The victim s, a husband and wife, operated a restaurant/convenience store. In May 2014, Appellant entered the premises and asked for change. He left but returned accompanied by his co
- defendant, a female companion

. The female t ried to grab a jar on the counter labeled “tips.” A struggle over the jar ensued and the victims were both injured. The husband was struck on his head multiple times with a plastic crate and suffered lacerations

. His injuries required a hospital visit w here he was treated with stitches and staple s . His wife suffered an abrasion to her left wrist but did not require medical attention. The victims gave police officers the license plate number of the car Appellant was driving. He was stopped the following day and apprehended. He was convicted in cause number 1370095D of attempted robbery of the husband and in cause number 1370096D of attempted robbery of the wife.
A NALYSIS By the Anders brief, counsel raises the sufficiency of the evidence to support Appe llant ’s convictions and whether Appellant was properly admonished as to the consequences of his pleas as possible arguments on appeal. After thoroughly reviewing the record, he concludes there are no issues to present for appellate review. We have indepen dently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non - frivolous issues which might support the se appeal s . See Penson v. Ohio ,4

488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. Stat e , 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. 196 9). After reviewing the record and c ounsel’s brief , we agree with counsel that there is no plausible basis for rev ersal in either case

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 - 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. C ONCLUSION Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment s are affirmed and counsel's motion s to withdraw are granted.
Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not publish.