## NUMBER 13 - 2 1 - 00 1 90 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

CANDICE B. SEGOVIA A/K/A CANDICE SEGOVIA A/K/A CANDICE BROOKE JOHNSON A/K/A CANDICE JOHNSON , Appellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 1 56 th District Court

of Bee C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Hinojosa, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina
A ppellant Candice B. Segovia a/k/a Candice Segovia a/k/a Candice Brooke Johnson a/k/a Candice Johnson appeals the trial court’s revocation of her community supervision

. Segovia pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance2

in penalty group one, namely, methamphetamine in the amount of less than one gram, a state jail felony. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115(b). The trial court deferred adjudication and placed Segovia on community supervision for three years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision, and Segovia pleaded “true” to eleven of the State’s allegations

. 1 The trial court r evoked community supervision, adjudicated Segovia guilty, and sentenced her to twelve months’
incarceration. Segovia ’s court appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967 ). We affirm.
I

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

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requireme nts 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 specifically advance ‘argua ble’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal

1 Specifically, Segovia pleaded “true” to allegations that she failed to report to the community supervision officer of Bee County, Texas on several occasions, failed to submit to urinalysis drug testing on several occasions, and intentionally used a controlled substance during the period of community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Segovia ad mitted she ingested methamphetamine and tested positive for it during the period of community supervision. She also acknowledged that she failed to report to her community supervision officer after she tested positive.3

authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

– 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 2003, no pe t.)); 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), Segovia ’s
counsel careful ly discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Segovia ’s counsel has also informed this Court that Segovia has been (1) notified that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2 ) provided with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed of h er rights to file a pro se response, review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided with a form m otion for pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20, Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an a dequate period of time has passed, and Segovia has not filed a pro se response. 2
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.

2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a pro se response should identify those issues the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether meritorious issues exis t and is not required to comply with the appellate rules

. In r e Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

– 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).4

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguab ly support an appeal. See id. at 827

– 28 (“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 requirem ent of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III

. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , Segovia ’s attorney 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 (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. 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.” ( quoting Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

– 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (citati ons omitted)) )

. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Segovia and to advise her of her right to file a petition
for discre tionary review. 3 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Segovia wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Co urt 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 o verruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. A petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk o f 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. 68.4.5

at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice
D o not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed on the 6t h day of January , 202 2

.