### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-17-00324- CR

LaSh eba Shedon a Covington, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F MI LLS CO UNTY, 35TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 317 1, TH E H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN ELLIS, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant L aSheba Shedona Covington was char g ed by i n d i ctm ent with unlawful
posses s i o n o f a firea

rm by a felon, a third deg ree felony

. See Tex. Penal Code § 46.04(a) (1), (e)

. The indictment also contained two en h an ceme nt para g raphs alleg ing two prior sequential felony convictions, which enhanc ed the punishment rang e to that of habitual offe nder. See id. § 12.42(d). Appellant waived a jury and proce eded with a trial befor e the court. She pled not g uilty to the char g ed offe nse but pled true to the alleg ations contained in the en h ance ment para g raphs. At the conclusion o f the bench trial, the trial court found appellant g uilty of unlawful possession of a firea rm by a fel o n , fo u n d t he alleg ations of the enhanc ement para g raphs to be true, and assessed appellant’ s punishment at confineme nt for 25 y ear s in the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice. Appellant’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments ofAnders v. Calif ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why there

are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); G a r n e r

v
. S tate , 3 0 0 S. W. 3 d 7 6 3 , 7 6 6 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e a ls o P e n s o n v
. O h io , 4 8 8 U

. S. 7 5 , 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has cer tified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advis ed ap p ell ant of her rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and file a pro se
response , and provided a motion to assist appella n t i n o b t aining the rec ord. See Kelly v. State , 436 S

. W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant

re quested acc ess to the appellate rec ord, and, pursuant to this Court’s order , the cler k of the trial
court provided written verific ation to this Court that the rec ord was provided to appellant. See Kelly , 436 S.W .3d at 321. To date, appellant has not f iled a pro se response or reque sted an extension of time to file a re sponse.

We have conducte d an independe nt revie w of the rec ord—including the rec ord of the
t ri al proce eding s below and appellate counsel’s brief—a nd find no reve rsible err or. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that the re co rd p rese nts no arg uably meritorious g rounds for

2revie w and the appea l is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to wi t hdraw is g rante d. The trial court’s 1 judgme nt of conviction is aff irmed.

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bour land, J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland Affir med Filed: Nove mber 27, 2018 Do Not Publish

Appointed counsel cer

tified to this Court that he advised ap p el l an t o f her rig ht to seek 1 discretionar

y revie w pro se should this Court decla re her appea l frivolous. I n addition, appellant was informed of her rig ht to file a pro se petition for discretionar y revie w upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of

Defendant’

s Right of Appeal

. Neve rtheless, appointed counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e, which mandates t h at counsel send appellant a

copy of this Court’s opinion and judgment along with notification of her rig ht to file a pro se petition for discretionar y revie w within five day s afte r this opinion is handed down. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see In re Schulman , 252 S.W .3d 403, 411 n.35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The duty to send appellant a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a repr esenta tional one. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W .3d at 411 n.33. I t is minist eria l in nature , does not involve leg al advice , and exists after this Court has g rante d counsel’s motion to withdraw. See id. 3