## NUMBER S 13 - 2 4 - 00 12 4 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

I RIS SAENZ , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 148 TH DISTRICT COURT

O F NUECE S COUNTY , TEXAS



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina
A ppellant Iris Saenz pleaded guilty to the second

- degree felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.02(a)(2)

. The trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of four years

. The State filed a motion to revoke , and a t the hearing, appellant pleaded “ true ” to the State’s allegation s that she committed the offense of violation of a2

protective order and that she failed to report to her community supervision officer within twenty

- four hours after her arrest

. T he trial court revoked community supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty of the offense , and s entenced her to three years’ imprisonment

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm

. I. A NDERS B RIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California , appellant ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that h is review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal c ould be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets 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, 40 6 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,

an Anders brief need not specifically 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

– Edinburg 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) and Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant ’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant ’s counsel also informed this Court3

in writing that he : (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of h er right to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing a response, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires appellant ’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days

. See
Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 40 8

– 09

. An adequate amount of time has passed , and appellant has not file d
a pro se response

. II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief , and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due 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 s of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 5 11

. I II

. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant ’s counsel has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17

. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five4

days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant 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 In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
I V

. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment

.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 8th day of A ugust , 202 4

.

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should a ppellant 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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. A ny petition for discretionary review must be filed with the C lerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.