### 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. 03-15-00478- CR NO. 03-15-00479- CR

David Wayne Stok es, Jr., A ppellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS . 742 68 & 739 14, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

These are appea ls pursuant to Anders v. Calif ornia

. I n two cause s consolidated for

1 trial, appellant David Way ne Stokes, J r., pleade d g uilty to the offe nses of burg lary of a building and burg lary of a vehicle. I n eac h cause , Stokes also pleade d true to the alleg ations in five enhanc ement 2
para g raphs alleg ing five prior state-jail-f elony convictions. During the plea hear in g , th e d is tr ict court took judicial notice of Stokes’s signe d judicial confe ssions, in which he admitted to the alleg ations contained within the indictments. At the conclusion of the hear ing, the district court fo und the evidenc e sufficie nt to support a finding of g uilt but withhel d t h at fi n d i n g and rese t the cause s for
sentenc ing.

386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 See Tex. P enal Code §§ 30.02, .04. 2At t h e sentenc ing hear ing, the district court admitted into evidenc e a letter written

by Stokes, in which he acc epted “full responsibility for the char ges ” aga i n s t him, attempted to explain why he had committed the burg laries, and asked the district court to place him on probation. At the conc lusion of the hear ing, the district court sentenced Stokes to t en y ear s’ imprisonment in

eac h cause , with the sentenc es to run conc urre ntly . These a ppeals followe d. I n eac h cause , Stokes’s court-a ppointed counsel has fi l ed a m o t i o n t o wi thdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the re co rd demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. Counsel has cer tified to the Court 3 that he has provided a copy of the motion and brief to Stokes, advised Stokes of his rig ht to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response , and suppl ied S tokes with a form m o tion for pro se

acc ess to the appe llate re cord. No pro se br ief or othe r written r esponse ha s been f iled. 4 We have independe ntly revie wed the rec ord an d agree with counsel that the
appea ls are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the rec ord that might arg uably support the appe als. I n eac h cause , counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d.

The judg ments of conviction ar e af firmed.

See 3 8 6 U. S

. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 3 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). See Ke lly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 313, 319-20 (Te x . Crim. App. 2014). 4 2__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Affir med Filed: Nove mber 4, 2015 Do Not Publish

3