### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 17

- 00264
- CR CYNTHIA STALEY , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. 23,333

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Cynthia Ann Staley pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in the amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.112 (West
2017 ). The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Staley on communit y supervision for five years. The State later moved to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. The motion alleged that Staley violated a condition of her community supervision because she admitted to her community supervision officer that she had usedStaley v. State Page 2

methamphetamine

. Staley pled “ tr ue” to the allegation. T he trial court thereafter adjudicated Staley guilty and sentenced h er to seven years’ imprisonment. This appeal
ensued. We affirm.
Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 139 6, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), S taley ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meet s the requirements
of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specificall y advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

- 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003 , no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), S taley ’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is

no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief , counsel’s motion to withdraw , and the appellate reco rd on S taley ; and (3) informed S taley of h er right to review the record and to file a pro seStaley v. State Page 3

response. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed,
and S taley has not filed a pro se response. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349

- 50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Du e to the nature of
Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47. 1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
In accordance with Anders , S taley ’s attorney has asked this Court for permission
to withdraw as counsel for S taley

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

- 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appe llant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of thi s Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy ofStaley v. State Page 4

this opinion and this Court’s judgment to S taley and to advise h er of h er right to file a petition for discretionary review. 1 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4; see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex p arte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed June 20, 2018 Do not publish [CR25]

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should S taley wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, s he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or from the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2. Any pet ition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rul es of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.4; see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.