### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00672- CR
Stacey Bo William son, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 684 23, H ONO RAB LE JO E CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Stacey Bo Wil liamson pleade d g uilty to cre dit-car d abuse and was place d
on defe rre d-adjudication community supervision for five y ear s. S e e T e x. Co de Crim. Proc. art. 42.12 (community supervision); Tex. Penal Code § 3 2.31(cr edit-ca rd and debit-ca

rd abuse)
. Shortly there afte r, the State filed a motion to proce ed with adjudication of g uilt based on appellant’ s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his defe rre d-ad j u d ication community supervision. Appellant pleade d true to two violations involving use of methamphetamine, and the State abandone d the re maining a lleg ations of violations.

After hear ing testimony from appellant’ s mother and g randmother co n ce rning the appropr iate punishment, the trial court revoke d appellant’ s probation, adjudicate d him g uilty on the
cre dit-car d abuse char g e, sentenc ed him to two y ear s in prison, and suspended his sentenc e for five y ear s. As part of the t er m s of community supervision, the court order ed appellant to enter andrema in in a substance abuse f elony punishment facility

for no more than one y ear . See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, §§ 15 (proc edure s rela ting to state jail felony community supervision), 22 (continuation or modification of community supervision afte r violation of condition of community supervision); Tex. Gov’t Code § 493.009 (g overning substance abuse felony punishment fac iliti es).

Appellant’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal i s frivolous and without merit. The brief m ee t s t h e re q u irements of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a p ro fessional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating wh y t h er e are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738 , 7 4 4 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also P en s o n v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988).

Appellant was serve d a copy of counsel’s brief and was ad v i sed of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. See A n d ers , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. No pro se brief or other wr itten response ha s been f iled. We have revie wed the rec ord, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no
reve rsible err or. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 3 0 0 S
. W
. 3 d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that the re cord pr esents
no arguably meritorious g rounds for revie w and the appea l is frivolous
. C o u n s el ’s motion to withdraw is g rante d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

2____________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield Affir med Filed: May

22, 2013 Do Not Publish

3