NO. 07-03-0369-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JUNE 22, 2004

______________________________ McKINLEY ROOSEVELT LEE, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 46 TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILBARGER COUNTY; NO. 10,27 8; HONORA BLE TOM N EELY, JU DGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION Following his open plea of guilty, appellant McKinley Roosevelt Lee was convicted of aggravated robbe ry and pu nishment was asse ssed at 3 5 years confineme nt. In1 Anders v. Califor nia, 386U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18L.Ed.2d 493 (196 7). 2 presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief in support of a mot ion to withdraw. We affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has diligen tly reviewed the record and, in his opinion, therecord reflects no reversible error or grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. Andersv. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolo us and without merit. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has discussed why, u nder the controlling authorities, there is no error in the co urt's judgment. Counse l has al so shown that h e sent a copy of the brief to appellant, and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appe al is wi thout meri t. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of hisright to review the record and file a pro se brief if he desired to do so. Appell ant did not file a response and theState did not favor us with abrief. During the punishment phas e the vict im testified that on March 15, 2004, at approximately7:45 p.m., as she was attemptin g to get i nto her ca r, appellant approached her, stuck somethin g in her side and said he was go ing to kill her or take her car. He grabbed her by the head, threw her into t he car besid e her car, grabbed her keys, and drove away in her car. Medi c al evidence established that the victim sustained serious bodily injury.3

Counsel raises one issue by which heconcede s no good faith argument can be presented to challenge appella nt’s ple a of guil ty and hi s sentence. A revi ew of therecord establishes that appellant’s plea was knowingly and voluntaril y made. Counsel also notes t hat appella nt had effective representation and thus, no argument can be made under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Also, the trial court is vested wi th a great degree of discretion in imposing an appropriate sentence. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex .Cr.App. 1 984). If the punishment assessed is within the statutory range, then it should not bedisturbed on appeal. Nunez v. State, 565 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978). Aggravated robbery is a first degr ee felony punishable by imprisonment for life or for any term of not more than 99 years or lessthan five years. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 12.32(a) & 2 9.03(a)(1) (Vernon 2003). Thus, no error is presented in the trial court’s assessment of a 35-year sentence.
We have also made an independent examination of th e entire record to determine whether there areany othe r arguabl e ground s which might sup port this app eal. See Penson
v. Ohio, 48 8 U.S. 75 , 109 S.C t. 346, 10 2 L.Ed.2d 300 (198 8). We have found no nonfrivolous issues and agree with counsel that the ap peal is witho ut merit. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 68 4 (Tex.C r.App. 19 74); Lacy v. State, 477 S.W.2 d 577, 57 8 (Tex.C r.App. 19 72). Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.