## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00164

- CR

JIMMY DON WALKER , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. F15507

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

On November 2, 2022, Jimmy Don Walker ple d guilty to possession of less than one

gram of a P enalty G rou p 1 controlled substance , a state jail felony. S ee T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY
C ODE A NN

. § 481.115(b)

. The trial court accepted Walker’s plea and found him guilty of the charged offense. After Walker pled true to the State’s punishment enhancement allegation s , the
trial court sentenced him to ten years’ inca r ceration. Walker appeals.
Walker ’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief stat ing that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural history
of the case and summariz es the evi dence el icited during the trial court proceeding s
. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California , counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the
record , demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. Califor nia , 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 appeal.
On February 17 , 202 3 , counsel mailed Walker cop ies of the brief, the motion to

w ithdraw, and the appellate reco rd

. Walker was informed of his rights to review the record and
file a p ro se response. By letter dated February 17, 2023, th is Court informed Walker that any pro se response was due on or before March 20, 2023. On March 6, 2023, Walker filed his pro

se response
. Also on March 6, 2023, we advised Walker that this cause was set for submission on March 27, 2023

.3

We have determined that this a ppeal i s who lly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and Walker’s pro se response and have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bl edsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

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

. 1

Jeff Rambin Ju stice
Date Submitted: Ma rch 27 , 202 3 Date Decided: April 10 , 202 3
D o Not P ublis h

1 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 appella n t in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appo inte d. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for di s cretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any p etiti on for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on w hich the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled b y this Court,
s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the cl erk of the T exas 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.