## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00059

- CR

CASEY TOWNSHEND COLLIER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

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

- 1476

- 18

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

O n December 1 3 , 20 18 , Casey Towns h en d Collier , pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

. 1 At the sentencing hearing on January 1 0,
2019, Collier w as placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of six

years. 2 In August 202 2 , the State moved to adjudicate Collier and revoke hi s community supervision

. The State alleged in its mot ion , among other things , that Collier fail ed t o provide urinalysis samples as required by the court ’s community supervision terms and conditions and

that Collier committ ed a new offense by possessing methamphetamine

. 3 A fter an evidentiary hearing, the tri al court f

ound six of the allegation s tru e a nd granted the State’s motion. Collier

was sentenced to fifteen years ’ incarceration.

Collier ’ s appellate counsel filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues th at c ould be raised on appeal

. T h e b rief sets o ut the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceeding s

. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating wh y there were no arguab l e grounds t o b e advanced , that evaluation m eet s the requirements of Anders v. California

. 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 (Te x . C rim.

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22. 02 (Supp.).

2 Originally appealed to the T welfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Co urt by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization effor ts. See T E X

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001. We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and tha t of this Court on any relevant issue. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 41.3.

3 See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115 (Supp.).3

App. 1 991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Couns el also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. By letter of June 30 , 2023, co un sel provided Collier wit h the motion t o wi thdraw and appellate brief and informed Collier of h is rights to review the record and file a pr o se response.
Counsel also provided Collier with a pro se motion for access to the appella te record. On the

same date , this Court notified Colli er tha t his re q ues t for acces s to the record was due on July 1 7 , 2023. On September 7, 2023 , this Court notified Collier that the case would be submitted to the Court on September 28, 2023. C ollier d id not request a cop y of the appellate record or f ile a pro

se response

. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independen tly 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 82 4, 826

– 27 ( Tex . Crim. App . 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is withou t merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.4

W e affirm t he trial cour t ’s judgment

. 4

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: September 28 , 2023 Date Deci d ed: September 29 , 2023

D o Not Publish

4 Sinc e we agree tha t this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of ap pellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointe d. Should app e lla nt desire t o seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for disc retionary review or fil e a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for disc reti onary revi e w ( 1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which 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 C riminal Ap p eal s, 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.