## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00145

- CR

MICHAEL ALLEN DUPLER, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 114th District Court Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. 114

- 1351

- 17

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Allen Dupler pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance 1 and was placed
on four years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a
motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Dupler had violated the terms and conditions of his
community supervision by failing to participate in the drug or alcohol abuse continuum of care
treatment plan as developed by the DEAR Unit. 2 Dupler pled true to this alleged violation, and
following the presentation of evidence, the trial court in Smith County 3 entered a judgment
adjudicating guilt and sentencing Dupler to twenty months in a state jail facility. Dupler appeals.
Dupler’s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case,
summarizing the evidence elicited duri ng the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding
that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Because counsel has
provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no plausible appel late

issues to be advanced , that action m eet s the requirements of Anders v. California

. See Anders v.
California , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 , 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High

1 See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.115(b).

2 The DEAR Unit is a community corrections recovery facility.

3 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals in Tyler, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001. We are unaware of any conflict between preced ent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3.3 v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion
with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
Counsel forwarded copies of his brief and motion to with draw to Dupler and informed him
of his rights to review the appellate record and to file a pro se response to counsel ’ s brief, should
he so desire. Additionally, counsel provid ed Dupler with a motion to obtain access to the record.
By letter dated Septem ber 3, 2019, this Court advised Dupler that the signed motion for access to
the record was due on or before September 18, 2019. By letter dated October 7, 2019, Dupler was
advised that his pro se response was due on or before November 6 , 201 9

. By letter dated

November 18, 2019, Dupler was advised that the case would be submitted on December 9, 2019.
Dupler did not file the motion for access to the record, a pro se response , or a motion requesting

an extension of time in which to file either the motion or the response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed
the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an
appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders
context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court ’ s
judgment. Id.4 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 4

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: December 9, 2019 Date Decided: December 13 , 2019

Do Not Publish

4 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel ’ s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearin g was overruled by this Court
, s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2 , (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
, s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3 , and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
, s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.