In the

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 Rambin
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 13, 2018, Casey Townshend Collier, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled 

guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

1 At the sentencing hearing on January 10, 

2019, Collier was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of six

years.2In August 2022, the State moved to adjudicate Collier and revoke his community 

supervision. The State alleged in its motion, among other things, that Collier failed to provide 

urinalysis samples as required by the court’s community supervision terms and conditions and 

that Collier committed a new offense by possessing methamphetamine.

3

 After an evidentiary 

hearing, the trial court found six of the allegations true and 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 that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural 

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings.

Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there were no 

arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets 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 (Tex. Crim. 

1See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (Supp.).

2Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We are unaware of any 

conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. 

APP. P. 41.3.

3See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (Supp.).
3

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. 

By letter of June 30, 2023, counsel provided Collier with the motion to withdraw and 

appellate brief and informed Collier of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. 

Counsel also provided Collier with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. On the 

same date, this Court notified Collier that his request for access to the record was due on July 17,

2023. On September 7, 2023, this Court notified Collier that the case would be submitted to the 

Court on September 28, 2023. Collier did not request a copy of the appellate record or file a pro 

se 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 trial court’s judgment.

4

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: September 28, 2023

Date Decided: September 29, 2023

Do Not Publish

4Since 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 rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, 

and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.4.