Opinion filed September 17 , 201 5



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 5

- 00 0 92

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### ADAM CASAREZ , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 106 t h District Court Dawson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 12

- 7210

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Adam Casarez
, pleaded guilty to the secon d

- degree felony
offense of arson

. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, th e trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment
, and placed him on community supervision

. T he State subsequently filed a n application to revoke App ellant’s community supervision. A f t er a contested hearing on revo cation
, t he t rial court
found the allegation s to be true
, revoked Appellant’s community supervision
, and
assessed h is punishment at confinement for five years

. We dismiss the appeal.2

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit . Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy
of the brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, a nd a copy of
the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record

. Counsel also advised A ppellant of h is right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se response. 1
Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. C rim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an
Anders brief and pro se response, a court 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 for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed
to brief the issues. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit
and should be dismissed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. The record from the contested hearing shows that Appellant admitted to one of the alleged violations of

1 By letter, t his court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.3

the terms and conditions of his community supervision; Appellant testified at the hearing and acknowledged that he had not obey ed all of the rules and regulations
and had not successfully complete d the program at Concho Valley Community
Corr ections Facility. Appellant’s community supervision officer, Julie Miller,
testified about various other violations by Appellant of the terms and conditions of
hi s community supervision as alleged in the State’s application to revoke

. Miller’s testimony regarding Appellant’s violations was uncontroverted. No evidentiary objections were lodged at the revocation hearing. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with appellate counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se pe tition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM September 17 , 201 5 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.