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

No. 06

- 17

- 00079

- CR

SAMUEL ERNEST WRIGHT A.K.A. SAMUEL EARNEST WRIGHT, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 371st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1471068D

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Samuel Ernest Wright, a.k.a. Samuel Earnest Wright, was convicted by a Tarrant County 1

jury of family violence assault with a prior conviction
, 2 and the jury assessed punishment of thirty

five years ’ incarceration.
Wright’ s appellate attorney filed a brief sett ing out the procedural history of the case
, summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding
that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Meeting the
requirements of Ander

s v. California , counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no plausible a ppellate issues to be advanced. See Anders v.
California , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re 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. 1991); High

v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion
with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this a ppeal.
Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Wright , provided him with a copy of the record, and

advised Wright of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. We advised Wright
that his pro se response, if any, was due on or before October 26 , 2017. Wright filed n either a pro

se response n or a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2013)

. We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 41.3.

2 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2017 ).3

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed
the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an
appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders
context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court ’ s
judgment. Id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 3

Bailey C. Moseley Justice

Date Submitted : November 29, 2017 Date Decided: Dec ember 8 , 2017

Do Not Publish

3 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion

or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, s ee 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 requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.