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

No. 07 - 12 - 00496 - CR KEENON JONES, APPELL ANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 140th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010 - 426,671, Honorable Jim Bob Darnell, Presiding



### July 19 , 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Keenon Jones, was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated robbery 1 and, pursuant to his election to have the trial court assess punishment, following a hearing on punishment, was sentenced to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Depart ment of Criminal Justice for life. We affirm.

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011 ).2

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 reversible 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 error in the trial court ’ s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief an d motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant 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 C ourt has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. App ellant has filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all 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 determine w hether 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 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with coun sel that the appeal is frivolous. In his response to the Anders brief, appellant contends that the question of the admissibility of certain telephone conversations recorded while he was incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail was properly preserved for appe al and presents an arguable issue for appeal. To support this position , appellant contends that his appella te counsel admitted that there are no Texas cases addressing this issue and, therefore, this3

presents an arguable issue. Appellant is in error in h is contention. In the case of Banargent v. State , 228 S.W.3d 393, 403

– 04 (Tex.App.
— Houston [14 th Dist
. ] 2007, pet. denied) , our sister court addressed this specific issue. The court held that , as long as the appellant had notice that jail calls may be re corded , there is no violation of the Texas Penal Code prohibition against the recording of an electronic communication. See id. at 404; see also T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 16.02(c)(3)(A) (West Supp. 2012)

. Having reviewed the entire record and found that app ellant was given notice that jail calls may be recorded, we are convinced that this is not an arguable issue. Accordingly, counsel ’ s motion to withdraw is hereby granted , and the trial court ’ s judgment is affirmed. 2

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Do not publish

2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant = s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 48.4.