## NO. 12

- 14

- 00361

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BRANNON MATTOX, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Brannon Mattox appeals his conviction for evading arrest in a vehicle. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State
, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND In April 2013, Appellant was indicted for the offense of evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a third degree felony as alleged. Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement and pleaded “guilty” to the offense. In accordance with the agreement, the trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a five year period. In December 2013, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The State alleged that Appellant failed to report to his community supervision officer and failed to pay various costs associated with his community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations. After a hearing, the trial court declined to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. Instead, it amended the terms of his community supervision by ordering him to complete the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment program (SAFP) while on community supervision. The trial court also extended the term of his community supervision to eight years.2

In November 2014, the State filed another application to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The State alleged in its motion that Appellant failed to adhere to the terms of his community supervision by failing to report to his community supervision officer an d that he failed to complete the SAFP. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations. Accordingly, the trial court adjudicated his guilt, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to imprisonment for five years. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT T O A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State

. Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders
, Gainous
, and High v. State
, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Pane l Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible er ror and have found

none. See Bledsoe v. State
, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulma n , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant his motion for leave to withdraw , and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43 .2. As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the

1 Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.3

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered July 22, 2015

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COUR T OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 22 , 2015

NO. 12

- 14

- 00361

- CR

BRANNON MATTOX, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0547

- 13)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on t he appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirme d , and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.