COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

JOHNNY LEE MOLDER , JR., Appellant ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee. § § § § § § No. 08

- 13

- 00 1 1 4

- C R

Appeal from the
355 th Judicial District Court
of Hood County , Texas (TC# CR11481 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Johnny Lee Molder, Jr. appeals his conviction of indecency with a child by contact following revocation of deferred adju dication community supervision. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Molder waived his right to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the charged
offense of ind ecency with a child by contact , a second degree felony

. The trial court found that the evidence supported a finding of guilt, but deferred adjudicating guilt and placed Molder on deferred adjudication community supervision for 10 years. The State subsequently filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt based on four alleged violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision , including an allegation that Molder had unsupervised contact with
several children younger than 17 years of age

. Molder entered a plea of true to the State’ s2

allegations , and the trial court accepted his plea . After hearing evidence and considering arguments , t he trial court found that Molder violated the t erms and conditions of community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion and assessed punishment at 20 years’ imprisonment

. ANDERS BRIEF
Molder’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 

### , reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967) ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. [panel op.] 1978) (adopting the Anders procedure ) ; see also Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

- 11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). In Anders , the United States Supreme Court recognized that counsel, though appointed to represent the appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on appeal. Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. C ounsel w as thus permitted to withdraw after informing the court of his conclusion and the effort made in arriving at that conclusion. Id

. In this case , Molder’s appellate c ounsel has concluded that after a thorough review of the record, Molder’s appeal is frivolo us and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of
Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced

. See Anders , 38 6 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. In accordance
wit h Anders ’s requirements , Molder’s counsel has moved t o withdraw. Counsel states in his motion that he delivered copies of the motion and Anders brief to Molder and advised Molder of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief

. Molder has not filed a pro se brief.
INDEPENDENT REVIEW After counsel files a proper Anders brief, the court of appeals must conduct its own review3

of the record to ascertain if there are any arguable grounds for the appeal. Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at
5 11

. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief in this case , and we agree with
counsel’s professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Because there is nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal, a further discussion of the argua ble grounds advanced in counsel’ s Anders brief would add nothi ng to the jurisprudence of the S tate.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

March 2 8 , 2014 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ. (Do Not Publish)