## NUMBER 13 - 17 - 00577 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

LONNELL RENE ROY , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , A ppellee.

On appeal from the 377 th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa Memoran dum Opinion by Justice Contreras Appellant Lonnell Rene Roy pleaded guilty to and was convicted of tampering with physical evidence , a third

- degree felony. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 37.09 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). The trial court assessed punishment at five years’
incarceration but suspended the sentence and placed appellant on community2

supervision for five years

. The State later filed a motion to revoke ap pellant’s community supervision. The trial court found three of the six alleged violations to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced him to five years in the in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Just ice. Appellant appealed,
and his court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief stating there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. A NDERS B RIEF Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found

no non - frivolous grounds for appeal. See id. ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough, professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent le gal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

– 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d at 813, and Kelly v. St ate , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgments. Appellant’s3

counsel has also informed this Court that he has: (1) notified appe llant that he has filed

an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both filings; (3) informed appellant of his rights to file a pro se response, 1 to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek dis cretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion in this Court. See Ande rs , 386, U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 609 n.23. More than adequate time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a f ull examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found no
reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 82 4, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for permission to withdraw. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252

1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n. 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).4

S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffrey v. State , 903 S.W.3d 776, 779

– 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney mu st file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this opinion, w e order counsel to send a copy of t his
op inion and judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file any petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment. DORI CONTRERAS Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 31st day of August , 2018

.

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If appellant seeks further review 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 must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overrule d by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2. A petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.