AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed July 28, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-01096-CR DADRIAN MONTREZ MCCLAIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 31862 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness Dadrian Montrez McClain appeals a judgment revoking his community supervision, adjudicating his guilt for a ggravated sexual assault of a child, and sentencing him to thirty years’ conf inement. We affirm the judgment. McClain pleaded guilty to aggravated sexu al assault of a child. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for ten years. Th e order required him to regi ster as a sex offender for life. McClain was released from jail and attemp ted to register as a sex offender, but he was unable to register in the tim e allotted. The State moved to revoke his–2– community supervision, citing his failure to register. The trial court granted the motion and sentenced McClain to life in prison. On appeal, we reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. McClain v. State , No. 05-19- 00146-CR, 2020 WL 913844, at *1 (Tex. App. —Dallas Feb. 26, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Following remand, the State again m oved to adjudicate guilt. The motion alleged that McClain had violated th e terms of community supervision by consuming controlled substances and by failing to report to the probation department. He initially pleaded not true to the allegations. However, during the hearing on the motion, he changed his plea to true. The trial court adjudicated McClain guilty of the underlying offense and sentenced him to thirty years’ confinement. He now appeals. McClain’s court-appointed appellate co unsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel ’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel delivered a copy of the br ief to McClain. We advised McClain of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a response. In the Anders context, we must independently evaluate the record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have carefully review ed counsel’s brief and the record. We–3– agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and w ithout merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accord ingly, we affirm the judgment.

201096F.P05 /Robbie Partida-Kipness / ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DADRIAN MONTREZ MCCLAIN, Appellant
No. 05-20-01096-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 31862.Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Pedersen, III and Nowell participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 28th day of July, 2022.