### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 16
- 00211
- CR PAMELA COAN , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. 13
- 21927

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Pamela Coan, was charged by information with driving while intoxicated with a child passenger, a state

- jail felony. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 49.045 (West 2011). Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, appellant pleaded guilty to the charg ed offense. The trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea, found appellant guilty of the charged offense, sentenced appellant to two years’ confinement in the State JailC oan v. State Page 2

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with a $1,000 fine, suspended the sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision for three years. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision, alleging that appellant violated numerous conditions of her community supervision.
Without the benefit of a plea agreement, appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations contained in the State’s motion to revoke. The trial court accepted appellant’s pleas of “true,” revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced appellant to eighteen
month s confinement with no fine. The trial court certified appellant’s right of appeal, and this appeal followed.
I. A NDERS B RIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), appellant’s court

- appointed appe llate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it mus t provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340,C oan v. State Page 3

343

- 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 1991) (en banc). 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 reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Couns el has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) provided appellant with a copy of the record and info rmed her of her right to file a
pro se response. 1 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 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 appellant has not filed a pro se response. 2 See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d
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.

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) (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

- 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, n o pet.)).

2 In his notice to appellant, appellant’s counsel indicated that he has “previously sent [appellant] a copy of the record for your use.” Based on this representation and the fact that we have not received a complaint from appellant regarding ac cess to the record, we have fair assurance that appellant has had sufficient access to the record to assist in filing a pro se response, though no response has been filed. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 321

- 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).C oan v. State Page 4

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349

- 50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have 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, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the n ature 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 Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Staf ford , 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 in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 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.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withd raw from representation, the appointed attorney must 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 Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. 3 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4;

3 No substitut e counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, s he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionaryC oan v. State Page 5

see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 4 12 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed February 8, 2017 Do not publish [CR25]

review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the T exas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.