## NUMBER 13 - 13 - 00290 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRIST I - EDINBURG

JAMES PLEXICO , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 94 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez Appellant James Plexico appeals from his conviction for the offense of felony family violence assault. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . §§ 22.01(b)(2)(B) (West, Westlaw through 2013 Legis. Sess.). Appellant pleaded guilty, and pursuant to a plea agreement,
the t rial court sentenced hi m to three years' deferred

- adjudication community supervision. The State filed its first motion to revoke on June 6, 2012; appellant pleaded true to two of2

the alleged violations, and the trial court sanctioned him to thirty days in jail but continued the community supervision. On October 16, 2012, the State filed its second motion to revoke, alleging further violations of appellant's community supervision conditions. Appellant pleaded true to the alleged violations in the second m otion to revoke. The trial court then revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the charged offense, and sentenced him to ten years' incarceration. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court. Concludin g that an appeal would be frivolous, appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm.

I. C OMPLIANCE WITH A NDERS V . C ALIFORNIA Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant's
court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that he has diligently reviewed the record and the applicable law and concluding that, in his professional opinion, there are "no non

- frivo lous grounds of appeal" of appellant's
conviction. 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 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, 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, thus, carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this3

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) informed appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. 1
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 appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court 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 have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered t he 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."); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the tria l 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

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 con sider in deciding whether the case p resents any meritorious issues." In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Wilson v. State , 95 5 S.W.2d 693, 696

– 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).4

(Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f 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 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 opini on and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to file a 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, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 6th day of February , 2014

.

2 No substitute couns el will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case 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 overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68.2. Any p etition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68.4.