### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00086

- CR

VIRGINIA ADAMS , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 18

- 04769

- CRF

- 361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Virginia Adams pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child b y
omission . A jury assessed Adams ’ punishment at seventy

- five years in the Texas Department of Crimina l Justice

- Institutional Division , and th e trial court imposed that

sentence . Adams filed a notice of appeal. We will affirm.

Adams ' appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that s he has diligent ly reviewed the appellate record
and that, in h er opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738Ad ams v. State Page 2 (1967)

. Adams has filed an opposition in response to the Anders brief. 1 In addressing

an Anders brief and a pro se response, a cou r t of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds fo r appeal exist and

rem and the cause to the tr ial court so that new counsel may be appointed to b rief the

issues. In re Sch ulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Bledsoe v. State , 178
S.W.3d 824, 826

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Although notified of its right to do so, the State has not filed a brief in response

to Adams ’ pro se opposition to the Anders brief

. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties requir ed of appointed counsel. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; High v.

State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313,

319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 407

. In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, .

. . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744;

see Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); accord Stafford v. State , 813 S.W .2d 503, 509

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988).

1 In one of her responses, Adams expressed dissa tisfaction with appellate counsel and requested appointment of new counsel . Although Adams did not present anything that would disqualify cou nse l , out of an abundance of caution, we abated this appeal to the trial court to conduct a hearing on Adams ’ complaints. After a hearing, the trial court determined that Ad ams was not entitled to new counsel.Ad ams v. State Page 3 After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have dete rmined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Ble dsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 826

- 27

. 2 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Counsel ’ s motion to withdraw is granted.

MATT JO HNSON Justice

B efore Chief Just ice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Jus tice Wright 3 Affirmed Motion granted O pinion deliv ered a nd filed July 13, 2022 Do not pu blish [CR PM ]

2 At our request, the clerk of the trial cour t s u pplemented the clerk ’ s record with a copy of the bill of cost. We identify no unpreserved, nonreversible errors not raised by appointed counsel. See Cummins v. State , -

-- S.W.3d

--- , No. 10

- 21

- 00303

- CR, 2022 WL 1489511, at * 9 (Tex. App.

— Waco May 11, 20 2 2, no pet. h.).

3 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Ret ired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assign ment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.