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

No. 07 - 18 - 00413 - CR SANTIAGO CARRASCO, JR., APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 64th District Court Swisher County, Texas Trial Court No. A

- 4642 - 17 - 06, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr., Presiding



### April 2 , 2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. Santiago Carrasco, Jr. , appellant, pleaded not guilty to burglary of a building 1 and the case proceeded to trial . Following voir dire, appellant changed his plea to guilty. The jury found him guilty and sentenced him to two years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Crimina l Justice and a $2,500 fine.

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 30.02 (West 20 19 ).2

In this appeal, counsel for appellant has filed an Anders 2 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. In his brief, counsel certifies that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no re versible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel discusses why, under the cont rolling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has sent a letter to appellant notifying him of his motion to withdraw; provided appellant with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and inform ed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 - 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also a dvised appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed such a response. The State has not filed a brief. By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error may have occurr ed but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non - frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal but, like counsel, we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.

2 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).3

Crim. App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s bri ef, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 3 Judy C. Parker Justice Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send appellant 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. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.