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

________________________ No. 07
- 13
- 003 5 7
- CR

________________________ WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 54th District Court McLenna n County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012
- 678
- C2 ; Honorable Phillip H. Zeigler , Presiding April 1 7 , 2015 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant pled guilty to the first degree felony offense of injury to a child

. 1 Appellant also ple d true to an enhancement p aragraph, thereby raising the minimum period of confinement to 15 years

. 2 As per the plea agreement, he was sentenced to twenty years confinement by the trial court

. In presenting this appeal,

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.04(a)(1), (e) (West Supp. 2014).
2 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.42(c)(1) (West Supp. 2014).2

Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders 3 brief in support of her motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm. In support of the motion to withdraw, counsel certifies s he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record , and in h er opinion, the record reflects no potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744
- 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated sh e has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying h im of h is right to review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of h is right to file a pro se petition for discretionary rev iew. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408. 4 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise h is right to file a response to counsel’s brief and Appellant did file a response. We have reviewed that response. T he State did not favor us wi th a brief.

3 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967).
4 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of h is right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review upon execution of the Trial Court ’ s Certification of Defendant ’ s Right of Appeal , counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with notification of h is right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22 & 411 n. 35. The duty to send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.3 A NALYSIS
When we have an Anders brief filed by counsel and a pro se response filed by an appellant, we have two choices. We may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826
- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citi ng Anders , 386 U.S. at 744), or we may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief any potential non
- frivolous issues. Id. (citing Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 50 3, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). Here, we have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non
- frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support the appeal. 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; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the r ecord , counsel’s brief , and Appellant’s pro se response , we agree with counsel that there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction

. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 826
- 27. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish.