Opinion filed September 17, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00092-CR

___________

ADAM CASAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th 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 second-degree felony 

offense of arson. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court

convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, and placed him on community 

supervision. The State subsequently filed an application to revoke Appellant’s 

community supervision. After a contested hearing on revocation, the trial court 

found the allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and 

assessed his 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 Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of 

the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his

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. Crim. 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 

 

1By letter, this 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 obeyed all of the rules and regulations 

and had not successfully completed the program at Concho Valley Community 

Corrections Facility. Appellant’s community supervision officer, Julie Miller, 

testified about various other violations by Appellant of the terms and conditions of 

his 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 Appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. 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 petition 

for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant 

that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

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

PER CURIAM

September 17, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.