### NUMBER S 13 - 11 - 00 632 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

- 

## EDINBURG

MELVIN EARL DEAL , A ppellant,

v. THE STAT E OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 2 52 nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justice s Rodriguez , Benavides , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Melvin Earl Deal , a ppellant, ple a d ed guilty to burglary of habitation and was given five years’ of deferred adjudication

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. ' 3 0

. 0 2 (a)(3)(c)(2) ( West 200 3 ). In 2011, the State filed a m otion to revoke alleging numerous violations including a new offense of t respass

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. ' 30

. 05 ( West 20 11 ).
Deal pled true to six of the seven counts , revoca tion was granted , and he was sentenced2

to eighteen years = imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice

C Institutional Division.
Deal = s appellate counsel, concluding that "there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal," filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm. 1
I. D ISCUSSION Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant = s
court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief w ith this Court, stating that h is review of the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Although counsel = s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arg uable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ( A 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 legal 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). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant's counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) exam ined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2)

1 Th ese case s were transferred to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 ( West 2005 ).3

served a copy of the brief and counsel = s motion to withdraw on appellant; a nd (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 2 See
Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed and Deal has not filed a pro se response. See In Re Schulman, 252 S.W.3 d at 409.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We h ave reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( A 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 re versible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. @ ); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant = s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

– 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that A [i]f an attorney believes the appeal is

2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that A 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 S chulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

– 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).4

frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court th at the appeal is frivolous. @ ) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel = s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court = s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his rig ht to file a petition for discretionary review. 3 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4.

_______________________ __ _ GINA M. BENAVIDES, Justice
Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 ( b )

. Delivered and filed the 12th day of July , 201 2

.

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Co urt 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 that was overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Effective September 1, 2011, a ny petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals . Any petition fo r discretionary review 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.