## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00043

- CR

TRAVIS JERNIGAN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 76th District Court Morris County, Texas Trial Court No. 11,694CR

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and Carter , * JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

____________________ *Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea agreement, Travis Jernigan pl ed guilty to stalking ; he was found guilty
and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and assessed a fine , restitution , and court costs ; his

sentence was suspended ; and he was placed on ten years’ community supervision. About two
years later, the State filed a motion to revoke his c ommu nity supervision , which was dismissed
after Jernigan came back into compliance with the conditions of his community supervision

. Subsequently, the State filed a second motion to revoke hi s community supervision

. Jernigan pled not true to the S t ate’s al le gation s , and after evidence was admitted in support of the allegations, the trial court found the allegations true , sentenced Jernigan to t en years’ imprisonment , and assessed him th e original fine and court costs

. Jernigan appeals the jud gm ent

revo king h is community supervision

. Jernigan ’ s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and
stated that counsel found n o m eritorio us iss ues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California , counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why t her e are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 74 3

– 4 4 (1967) ; In r e Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 91); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Jernigan ’ s counsel file d a motion w ith th is Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Jernigan with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. H is counsel3

also informed Jernigan of h is right s to review the record and to file a pro se response and
prov ided Jerniga n wit h a pro se motion for access to the appellate record

. By letter dated January 4, 2022, we notified Jernigan that his pro se response was due on February 3, 2022. By letter dated February 18 , 2022, we notified Jernigan that the case would b e su bmitted o n briefs
on March 1 1 , 2022. We did not received a pro se response from Jernigan

. We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no
reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. St ate , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 20 05).
W e affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1

Jack Carter Justice
Date Submitted: March 11, 2022 Date Decided: A pril 6 , 202 2
Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counse l’s reque st to withdraw from furt her representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek furt her review of this case by the Texas Court of Cr iminal Appeals , appe lla nt must e it her retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any peti tion for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from eit her the date of thi s opinion or t he dat e on which th e last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see T EX . R. A PP

. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the req uirements of R ule 68 .4 o f the Tex as Rules of Appellate Procedure, see T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4.