1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO. 09
- 18
- 00468
- CR NO. 09
- 18
- 00469
- CR

__________________ JAMES MICHAEL LILLIE , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No s . CR 32660, CR 32661

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
In Mar ch 2018, James Michael Lillie plead ed guilty to the crimes of Assault Family Violence

– Occlusion and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon , and
he was placed on deferred adjudication for a period of four years

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.01(b)(2)(B) , 22

. 02(a)(2) (West 2019 ). In October 2018, the S tate
filed a motion to revoke Lillie’s unadjudicated community supervision, based on new allegations that Lillie committed the crimes of A ssault F amily V iolence and2 A ggravated A ssault with a D eadly W eapon ag ainst G.H. 1 while on probation. The
St ate also alleged that (1) Lillie failed to report to his supervision officer in July and August of 2018, (2) failed to pay supervision fees in whole or part for the months of April, May , June, July, August, and Septemb er 2018, (3) failed to complete 300
hours of community service, and (4) failed to attend a Batterer’s Intervention Program. Lillie plead ed true to one allegation that he failed to report to his supervision officer as required by his probation.
After a ben ch trial, the trial court found Lillie violated the terms and conditions of his probation , including Lillie’s ple a of true to one allegation in the
State’s motion , and adjudicated James Michael Lilli e guilty of Assault Family
Violence

– Occlusion and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon

. The trial

court s entenced Lillie to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice , Institutional Division for 10 years and 16 years respectively, ordering Lillie’s

sentences to run concurrently in both cas es
. Lillie timely appeal ed

. Lillie’s appellate counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record concluding there were no meritorious issues for appeal. See Anders v. California ,

1 To protect the privacy of the victim, we identify her by her initials. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30(a)(1) (granting victims of crime “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim ’ s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process”).3 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. A pp. [Panel Op.] 1978). When we address an Anders brief as an appellate court, we have the option to determine: (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we reviewed the record and find no reversible error; or (2) that
arg uable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citations omitted). We have independently reviewed the entire record in this matter. From our review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues exist to support an appeal, and there is no reversible error. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment
of new couns el to re

- brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Given our conclusion that no arguable grounds exist to support Lillie’s appeal, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. 2
AFFIRMED.

_________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

2 Lillie may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4 Submitted on June 21, 2019 Opinion Delivered June 26, 2019 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.