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

No. 06

- 19

- 00116

- CR

HOLLY ELLEN BRADY, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR02872

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Holly Ellen Brady appeals the May 6, 2019, revocation of her community supervision and her sentence of two years’ confinement in a state jail facility. The underlying charge was possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance, to which she had pled g uilty April 1, 2019, and on which the trial court had found her guilty, sentenced her, and suspended that sentence
in favor of her short

- lived community supervision. Brady’s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case , summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California and has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. 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); Staffor d v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High
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 sent a copy of the bri ef to Brady, provided her with a copy of the record, advised Brady of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response , and advised her of the deadline to file her response. Brady has filed a pro se response in which she has asserted no merito rious
issues. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v.3 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.
We affirm the tri al court’s judgment

. 1

Josh R. Morriss III Chief Justice
Date Submitted : November 20, 2019 Date Decided: November 21 , 2019
Do Not Publish

1 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, s he mu st 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 whic h the last timely motion for rehearing 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, see 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, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.