AFFIRM; Opinion Filed March 8 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 19
- 01321
- CR No. 05
- 19
- 01563
- CR DONNIE RAY JONES , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F17
- 71725
- V & F17
- 57638
- V

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Schenck Donnie Ray Jones appeals his two convic tions for assault causing bodily injury, each enhanced with a finding the assault involved family violence under article 42.013 of the code of criminal procedure

. We affirm the trial court’s judgments in both cases. Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.4

. B ACKGROUND Appellant was indicted on two counts of third

- degree felony offenses of
assault against a member of appellant’s household and with whom appellant had a– 2

–

dating relationship

. Each indictment included an enhance ment paragraph, alleging appellant had been previously convicted of the felony offense of burglary of a
habitation. The offenses were alleged to have been committed on August 18 and 25 of 2017. A ppellant pleaded guilty to both charges and judicially confessed the
offenses. In each case, appellant signed a plea agreement, which the trial court accepted. Pursuant to these agreements, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find appellant guilty on his original pleas of guilty but made no finding of guilt and placed a

ppellant on a five

- year deferred community supervision in each case. On April 26, 2019, the State of Texas filed a mended motion s to adjudicate in
both cases , alleging that a ppellant had violated his condi tions of community supervision in each case. On October 24, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing
on both cases

. Appellant entered a plea of true to several, but not all, of the allegations in each motion. After the trial court accepted a ppellant’s plea of true in
each case , and after hearing the evidence from both sides , the trial court revoked

a ppellant’s community supervisions and adjudicated and assessed a ppellant’s punishment at 10 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in both cases.
The trial court’s certification of Defendant’s Right to Appeal was filed with the court on October 24, 2019. Appellant filed a motion for new trial in each case , both of
which were overruled. Appellant filed a notice of a ppeal in each case.– 3

– D ISCUSSION Appellant’s a ppointed counsel filed a single Anders brief and motion to withdraw addressing all of the cases stating that he diligently reviewed the entire appellate record and that, in h is opinion, there are no meritorious i ssues on appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)

. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why
there are no non

- frivolous grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman , 25 2 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). 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, an appeal from the judg ments and sentences is without merit and frivolous because the record reflects no reversible error and, in his opinion, there are no grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated

. Counsel specifically noted,
from his review of the following, that he found no issues presented for review: (1) the sufficiency of the indictment, 1 (2) competency, 2 (3) pretrial motions, 3 (6) jury

1 The indictments contain all elements of the offenses and conferred jurisdiction on the trial court. 2 The trial court admonished appellant at the plea proceedings and made findings in the judgments that appellant was mentally competent to enter the pleas. 3 No pretrial motions filed and thus no ruling on any pretrial motions to support an appeal.– 4

–

waiver and pleas of guilty, 4 (7) sufficiency of the evidence, 5 and (8) right to appeal. 6 In addition, counsel reviewed the perfo rmance of trial counsel and concluded the record does not reflect counsel failed to interpose a proper objection that might have preserved reversible error and states nothing in the record suggests the punishment assessed is grossly disproportionate to the crime

. 7 Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant, and by letter dated April 22, 2020 , we advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response by May 8, 20 20

. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has r ight to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). We advised appellant that failure to file a pro se response by that date would result in the case being submitted on the Anders brief alone. Appellant did not file a response

. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988)

. Having reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief ,

4 Record contains written waiver of jury trial as required by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. All requirements of articles 1.13, 1.14 , and 1.141 of the code of c riminal procedure were met. 5 Appellant executed written sworn judicial confessions in which he stated that he committed each element of the primary offense exactly as alleged in the indictments. 6 The trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal was filed in each case. 7 We need not determine whether the trial court’s inquiry of trial counsel, as to whether there was any reason at law that appellant could not be sentenced, afforded appellant the right of allocution because controlling pre cedent requires that a defendant timely object to complain about a denial of the right of allocution and no objection appears in the record. See Gallegos

- Perez v. State , No. 05

- 16

- 00015

- CR, 2016 WL 6519113, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Nov. 1, 2016, no pet.) ( mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Tenon v. State , 563 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (panel op.)).– 5

–

we find nothi ng that would arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in
Anders cases). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
In accordance with Anders , counsel ha s filed a motion to withdraw from each
of these cases. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

– 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is 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 that the appeal i s frivolous.”). 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 judgments to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to pursue a petition for review. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

D O N OT P UBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47 191321 F

. U 05 /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 6

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT DONNIE RAY JONES, Appellant
No. 05

- 19

- 01321

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17

- 71725

- V. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Smith and Garcia participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 8th day of March , 2021.– 7

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT DONNIE RAY JONES, Appellant
No. 05

- 19

- 01563

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17

- 57638

- V. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Smith and Garcia participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 8th day of March , 2021.