NO. 07-01-0419-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A APRIL 5, 2002

______________________________ DESMOND DEON CRADDOCK, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 400 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F FORT BE ND COUNTY; NO. 34,230-B; H ONORABLE J. B RADLEY SM ITH, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ. Appellant

Desmond Deon Craddock was convicted afte r a jury trial of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment by a jury of five year s confinement in the Institutional Divisi on of the Department of Cr iminal Justi ce. Timely notice of ap pea l wa s give n by appellant.2

Appellant’s appointed attorney has now fil ed a moti on to withd raw, together w ith an Anders brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In that brief, he cer tifies that after careful examinati on of the record, he has concluded that the appeal is without merit. He furth er ce rti fies that he has forw arded a copy of the brief to appell ant, along w ith a letter advising him o f his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Appell ant was notified by this court that he had until March 6, 20 02, to file a brief if he de sired to do so. As of this time, we have received neither a brief nor a motion for ex

tension of time to fil e one. The State has w aived itstime for filing a brief in this

matter.
In considering federal constitution al concerns of this type, we must first sa tis fy ourselves

that the attorney

has provided t he client w ith a diligen t and thorough search of the record for any

argu able claim that might support the client’s appeal and then mu st determ ine wh ether counsel h as correctl y concluded the appeal is fri volous. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisc

onsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1985, 1 00 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1978). We note th at appell ant’s counsel on appeal also repres ented him at the trial court l evel and shou l d therefore be familiar

with the record.
In asserting thatthe appeal is friv olous, appellant ’s counsel s tates that appell ant
was identified by

the victi m and a co-defendant, and fur ther that appellant confessed to the crime, butonly admitted to having pointed a finger and not a gun at the victim. However, both the victim and co-defenda nt stated appell ant had a gun or a pel let gun. C ounsel3

further argues that, by the author ity establ ished in McCain v. State , 22 S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex.Cri m.App. 2000), an object used to threaten deadly force is in fact a deadly w

eapon if it is capable of causing death or seriousbodily i njury. A police officer ex perienced w ith pellet guns testified that, i f it is placed in the rig ht spot, a pell et gun is capable of causing death or se rious bodi ly injur y. We further note that althoug h the voluntariness of appellant’s c onfession was raised at tr ial, there does not appear to have been any err or in the trial court’s r uling on i ts admissibi lity.
We have also madean independent examination of the record to d etermine whe ther there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. Finding none, we are in agreement

with counsel that the appeal i s without mer it and is ther efore frivolous

. Lacy v. State , 477 S.W .2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App . 1972). Accordingl y, the motion to withdr aw is g ranted, and the j udgment is affirmed.

John T. Bo yd Chief Justice Do not publish

.