# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00643

- CR
Lonnie PRICE , Appellant

v. The State of TexasAppellee The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011CR9144 Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 2, 2015
AFFIRMED Appellant , Lonnie Price , pled no contest to the charge of burglary of a habitation

. On June 11, 2013, t he trial court signed an O rder of D eferr ed A djudication , suspended appellant’s sentence , and placed him on community supervision for two years. Later, the State moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision on several grounds, including new offenses of evading arrest and assault, as well as failure to take a drug test in compliance with the terms of his community supervision . At a hea ring on the motion to revoke, appellant pled “true” to violating a condition
of h is community supervision , but he pled “not true” to the two new criminal offenses

. On June04

- 14

- 00643

- CR

- 2

- 17, 2014, t he trial court revoked appellant’s deferred adjudication community super vision, signed

a Judgment Adjudicating G uilt, and sentenced appellant to twenty years’ confinement. On appeal, appellant’s court

- appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant was informed of h is right to review the record and of his right to
file a pro se brief. Appellant filed a pro se brief raising various fact issues related to his arrest for burglary of a habitation and asking this court to review the case “due to lack of evidence and hearsay.”
A ppellant did not appeal from the June 11, 2013 O rder of D eferred A djudication . We also note that the “Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” signed after the original plea agreement states this case “is a plea

- bargain, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Therefore,
we do not consi der appellant’s pro se complaints related to the O rder of D eferred A djudication

. After reviewing the record, we agree the appeal from the J udgment A djudicating G uilt is
frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 1 Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary revie w must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Texas Ru les of Appellate Procedure 68.4.