Opinion filed December 14, 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _____

_ _ _____ 

### No s . 11

- 1 7

- 00 211

- C R & 11

- 1 7

- 00 212

- CR

_____ __ _____ ____ 

### STEPHEN PAUL PATEL , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 91st District Court E astland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 24348 & 24459

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Stephen Paul Patel originally pleaded guilty to t wo offense s: fail ure to comply with his sex offender registration requirements and bail jumping / failure to appear

. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement in each case , th e trial court convicted Appellant, assessed h is punishment
, and placed h im on community supervision

. T he
State subsequently filed a mot ion to revoke Appellant’s co mmunity supervision in
both cases

. A f

t er a contested hearing on revo cation
, t he t rial court found three of
the State’s allegation s to be true and revoked Appellant’s community supervision in2

both cases

. The trial court imposed the original sentence of confinement for t en
years in each cause and also imposed the original fine of $ 3 ,000 in cause no. 24348

. We dismiss the appeal s

. In both appeals, Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw. Each motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has
concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit

. Counsel has provided
A ppellant with a copy of the brief s , a c opy of the motion s to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a fo r m motion for pro se access to the appellate record s

. Counsel also advised A ppellant of h is right to review the record s and file a response
to counsel’s brief

s

. Appellant has not filed a pro s e response , nor has he filed the motion for pro se access to the appellate record

. 1
Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2 d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion expl aining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bledsoe v. St ate , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App.

1 By letter, t his court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise h is right to file a response to counsel’s brief

s

.3

2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record s , and we agree that the appeal s are without merit
and should be dismissed. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se pe tition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.
The motion s to withdraw are granted, and the appeal s are dismissed.

PER CURI AM

December 14, 2017 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Dauphinot, 2 sitting by assignment. Bailey, J., not participating.

2 Lee Ann Dauphinot, Retired Justice, Court of Appeals, 2 nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.