## NO. 12

- 18

- 00293

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

STEVEN JACOB BUCK, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 159T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Steven Jacob Buck appeals his conviction for forgery against the elderly. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.
Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with two counts of the offense of forgery against the elderly by making, complet ing, executing, or authenticating a writing, i.e., a check, with the intent to defraud or harm another, namely, an elderly individual sixty

- five years of age or older, a third degree felony. 1 Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense charged in the indict ment. Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty plea, including an agreed punishment recommendation and a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that his written guilty plea constituted sufficient evidence t o sustain a guilty verdict. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found the evidence sufficient to substantiate Appellant’s guilty plea, deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and ordered that Appellant be placed on d eferred adjudication community supervision for four years.

1 See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. § 32.21(a)(1)(A), (2), (b), (d), (e

- 2 ) (West Supp. 2018).2 Later, the State filed a second amended motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Appellant violated the terms of his community supervision including committing the offense of theft; committing th e offense of assault; using, possessing and/or consuming alcohol; failing to report in person at least once a month to his community supervision officer from January through February 2017; failing to permit the community supervision officer to visit his ho me by neglecting to provide a valid address; failing to perform fifty hours of community service; failing to pay his supervision fees in the amount of $60.00 per month from June 2016 through February 2017; failing to pay court costs, fines, and restitution to the district clerk’s office for the months of June 2016 through February 2017; failing to report to a scheduled appointment with his community supervision officer on December 16, 2016 to provide a new address; failing to complete the Cognitive Thinking Class; failing to submit to a substance abuse evaluation; and failing to report to a scheduled judicial summons on March 22, 2017. At the hearing, Appellant pleaded “true” to all the violations pleaded by the State. At the sentencing hearing, Emily Whit e, Appellant’s ex

- wife, testified that she was the victim of the assault that was one of the bases of the motion to adjudicate. Appellant came to her house to pick up their daughter for visitation. White stated that her daughter began “back talking”
and told her mother “no.” She attempted to punish the child but her daughter ran from her and threw herself on the ground. White stated that she grabbed her daughter to spank her, but Appellant hit her, White, with his fist on the right side of her jaw. Appellant attempted to take the child, but White pushed the child into the house, told Appellant to get off her property, and called law
enforcement. Amy Freeman, a community supervision officer, testified that Appellant did not pay any of his supervisio n fees; did not report to Shelby County when his community supervision was transferred to that county; reported two or three months to Nacogdoches County when he was transferred to that county; and failed to attend a compliance hearing on March 22, 2017. After the sentencing hearing, the trial court found all of the allegations to be “true,” granted the State’s motion to adjudicate, adjudged Appellant guilty of two counts of forgery against the elderly, and assessed his punishment at eight years of impriso nment to run concurrently. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA3 Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the r ecord reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders
, Gainous , and H igh v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 2 We reviewed the
record for reversible error and found none. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withd raw is hereby granted , and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2. Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re Schulman , 22 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a pe tition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or, if a

m otion for rehearing is filed, the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this

court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review

2 In compliance with Kelly v. State , Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.4 should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered June 28, 2019. Panel consisted of W orthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 2 8 , 2019

NO. 12

- 18

- 00293

- CR

STEVEN JACOB BUCK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 159th District Court of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2015

- 0849) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certifie d to the court below
for observance. By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.