Opinion filed February 28, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-12-00194-CR

__________

KENNETH CODY WOOD, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 26th District Court

Williamson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 04-757-K26

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kenneth Cody Wood pleaded guilty in July 2005 to the first-degree felony offense of 

possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and 

placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years. The State 

subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging multiple violations of the terms and 

conditions of community supervision. The trial court heard the motion to proceed on June 6, 

2012. Appellant pleaded “[n]ot true” to all of the alleged violations. At the conclusion of the 

hearing, the trial court found all of the alleged violations to be true, adjudicated appellant guilty 
2

of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division 

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of twelve years. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is 

supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record 

and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has 

provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and advised Appellant of his right to review the 

record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed.1 Court-appointed 

counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 

S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); 

and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the 

procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and 

we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may file a petition 

for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review 

by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant 

on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the 

opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

February 28, 2013

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.

 1

By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.