Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Appellant Deundra Neal Hamilton of the third-degree felony offense of assault–bodily injury of a family or household member by impeding the breathing or circulation of the blood and assessed Hamilton’s punishment at 10 years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(B); see also id. § 12.34 (punishment range for third-degree felony). The trial court sentenced Hamilton accordingly.

After determining that Hamilton’s appeal was frivolous, Hamilton’s court- appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Hamilton with copies of the brief and motion to withdraw, she informed Hamilton of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this court deny relief. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Hamilton had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief but did not do so. The State has not filed a response.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: August 10, 2023