Opinion filed April 6 , 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 308

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### WILLIAM CRAIG ROGERS, JR. , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 91st District Court Eastland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 2 3186

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, William Craig Rogers, Jr.
, pleaded guilty to the offense of stalking

. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, th e trial court found Appellant guilt y, assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a fine of $2,000, and placed him on community supervision for a term of five years

. T he State later filed a motion to revoke community supervision. A f t er a contested hearing on revo cation
, t he t ria l
court found all of the State’s allegation s to be true
, revoked Appellant’s community supervision
, and imposed the original sentence of ten years and the remainder of the original fine

. 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 provided A ppellant with a copy of
the brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record

. Counsel also advised A ppellant of h is right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. 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.). Upon Appellant’s pro se filing of the motion for access to the appellate record, this court granted the motion and provided Appellant with a copy of the clerk’s
record and the reporter’s record. Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In his response, Appellant asserts, among other things, that he wishes to file
a motion for new trial and that he received ine ffective assistance of counsel. In addressing an A nders 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 r emand 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. 20 05). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and3

should be dismissed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. The record from the contest ed hearing supports the trial court’s findings regarding the violations by Appella nt of
the terms and conditions of hi s community supervision. No evidentiary objections were lodged by Appellant’s counsel at the revocation hearing. Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community supervision. Jordan v. State
, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785

– 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Traylor v. State , 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no argu able 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 revi ew 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 defe ndant’s right to file a pro se petition 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.

April 6 , 2017 PER CURIAM Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

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

. 1
Bailey, J., not participating.

1 Richard N. Countiss, Retired Justice, Court of Appeals, 7th District of Texas at Amarillo, sitting by assignment.