### 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. 03-12-00806- CR

John H enry Car ter , Jr., Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 391 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 1-0 386- SA, H ONO RAB LE MARTI N (B ROCK ) J ONES , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant J ohn Henr

y Carter , J r. pled g uilty to burg lary o f a h ab i tation, evading

arr est in a motor vehicle with a prior conviction, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, but pled
not g uilty to ag g rava ted robber y . Th e t ri al co u rt found him g uilty of all offe nses, and fix ed an

a g g r e g a te p u n is h me n t a

t 4 0 y e a r s in p r is o n a

n d 7 3 0 d a y s in a s ta te ja il f a c il it y . A p p e ll a n t a p p e a ls f r o m the conviction for ag g rava ted robber y . Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel’s brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord and demonstrating that there are no arg uable
g rounds to be advanc ed. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders , 386 U.S. at 743-44; High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807, 811-13 (Tex

. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. Stat e , 516 S.W .2d 684,
684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Te x . C ri m . Ap p. 1969).Appell an t ’s at t o rney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the rig ht to

examine the rec ord and file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Jack son v. State , 485
S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se br ief ha s been f iled.
Ha ving revie wed the evidenc e prese nted to the court and the proce dures th at we re observe d, nothing in the rec ord might arg uably support the appea l. We ag ree with counsel that the
appea l is frivolous and without merit. We g rant co u n s el ’s m otion to withdraw and aff irm the judgme nt of conviction. 1

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin
Affir med Filed: Aug ust 13, 2013 Do Not Publish

No substitut e counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further revie w of 1 his case by the court of criminal appea ls, he must either reta in an at t o rn ey t o fi l e a petition for d is c r e ti o n a

r y r e v ie w o r f il e a p r o s e p e ti ti o n f

o r d is c r e ti o n a

r y r e v ie w . S

e e g e n e r a ll y T e x. R. A

p p . P. 6 8

- 7 9 ( g o v e r

n in g p r o c e e d in g s in th e T e xa s Co u r t o f Cr im in a l A p p e a ls )

. A

n y p e ti ti o n f

o r d is c r e ti o n a

r y revie w must be filed within t h i rt y d ay s fr om the date of either this opinion or the date this Court overr ules the last timely motion for rehe aring filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, afte r which it will be forwa rded to the court of criminal appea ls along with the rest of the filings in the cause . See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionar y revie w s h o u l d co m p l y with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate proce dure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 2