### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 15
- 00207
- CR No. 10
- 15
- 00208
- CR No. 10
- 15
- 00209
- CR No. 10
- 15
- 00210
- CR No. 10
- 15
- 00211
- CR
KENNETH WILEY , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No s . FO
- 14
- 22332 , FO
- 14
- 22333, FO
- 14
- 22334,

FO
- 14
- 22335 and FO
- 14
- 22336

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Kenneth Wiley made open pleas of guilty to five separate indictments , each alleging possession of child pornography. After a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to seven years in prison in each case, to b e served consecutively. These appeals ensued. We will affirm.Wiley v. State Page 2

In accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in each case A ppellant’s court

- app ointed appellate counsel filed a brief and
motion to withdraw , st ating that his review of the record s yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief s meet the requirements of
Anders ; they present a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural histo ry and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), A ppellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why,

un der controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment s . Counsel has informed us that he has: (1) examined the record s and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of each brief and motion to withdr aw

on A ppellant; and (3) provided A ppellant with a copy of the record s and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a
pro se response. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349

- 50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the record s and
counsel’s brief s and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. SeeWiley v. State Page 3

Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, the judgment s of the t rial court are affirmed.
A ppellant’s attorney has moved to withdraw as counsel for A ppellant in each case

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion s to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment s to A ppellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in each case

. 1 See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 48.4; see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 3 , 2015 Do not publish [CRPM ]

1 N ew appellate counsel will not be appointed for Appellant . Should A ppellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary revie w must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or from the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedu re. See id. at R. 68.4; see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.