Opinion issued October 4, 2012 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 11
- 0 098 8
- CR

——————————— WALTER SEYMORE, JR. , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1222650

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A trial court convicted Walter Seymore, Jr

. of murder and assessed punishment at twenty

- five years’ confinement

. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 19.02 (West 2011 ). Seymore’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw2

and an Anders brief in which he states that no valid grounds for appeal exist and that any appeal would be frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Seymore ’ s pro se response challenges his appellate counsel’s recommendation and raises arguments relating to (1) improper use o f evidence of prior convictions, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) an alleged failure to issue Miranda rights

. Because we conclude that appellant has raised no arguable grounds for appeal, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Background
In July 2009 , the State charged Seymore by indictment with murder , a first degree felony offense punishable by five to ninety

- nine years’ imprisonment. See
T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. §§ 12.32 (a) , 19.02 (West 2011 ). Seymore pled not guilty. After a bench trial, the trial court found Seymore guilty of the offense as charged and sentenced him to twenty

- five years’ confine ment. The trial court certified Seymore’s right to appeal, and he timely filed his notice of appeal. Discussion The brief submitted by Seymore ’s court

- appointed counsel states his professional opinion that t h e re are no arguable grounds for r eversal on appeal and that any appeal would, t her efore, lack merit. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct.
at 1400. Counsel’s brief presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record3

and stat es why he contends t her e are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id. ; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

– 07 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel sent Seymore a letter informing him of his conclusion that t her e was no reversible error that could be raised on his behalf on appeal, explaining his analysis in reaching that conclusion, and stating that he filed an Anders brief with the Court.
He also informed Seymore of his right to examine the record and file a pro se brief.
He provided Seymore with a copy of his And ers brief, his motion to withdraw, and rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Seymore filed a pro se brief with this court. When we receive an Anders brief from a defendant’s court

- appointed attorney who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasiz ing that reviewing court, and not counsel, determines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her case is “wholly frivolous”); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In conducting our review, we consider Seymore’s pro se respon se to his counsel’s Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If our independent review of the record leads us to conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may affirm the trial court’s judgment by issuing an opinion in which we explain that we have reviewed the record and find no4

reversible error. Id. at 828. Seymore may challenge the holding that t here are no arguable grounds for appeal by petitioning for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 827 & n.6. Conclusion In accordance with Anders and Bledsoe , we have reviewed the record, the Anders brief from Seymore’s appointed counsel , and Seymore’ s pro se response to the brief . We conclude that t her e are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal.
We t her efore affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appointed counsel’s
motion to withdraw. 1

Harvey Brown Justice
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale and Brown. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b )

.

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Seymore of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Co urt of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6; Ex Parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 26

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens v. State , 35 S.W.3d 770, 771

– 72 (Tex. App

. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).