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

No. 06

- 23

- 00194

- CR

RODREKUS KENTRELL CEASAR , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 29217

Bef ore Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

R odrekus Kentrell Ceasar pled guilty to possessing less than one gram of e utylone , a penalty group 2 controlled substance. See T E X

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.103(a)(4)(B) (Supp.)

. As a result , the trial court found Ceasar guilty of this state jail felony. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.116( b ). Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement with the S tate, the trial court s ent enced C ea sar to twenty

- four months ’ confinement in

s tate jail but suspended the sentence in favor of placing Ceasar on community supervision for three years

. When the State filed its first revocation motion, the trial c ourt modified the terms

a nd c ondit ions o f Cea sar’s community supervision to require him t o perform community service “on the last Saturday of each month” and “ to provide not less than 10 submitted applications ”
every two week s “ until he [became] gainfull y employed .” The Sta te’s se cond r evocat i o n
mot ion, at issue here, alleged that Ceasar violated those modified terms and conditions. At the revocation hearing, Ceasar pled true to the allegations in the State’s motion to revoke his community s upervision. According ly, the tria l cou rt fou nd the a llega tions true and sentenced Ceasar to twenty

- four months’ confinement in state jail. Ceasar appeals.
Ceasar ’ s attorney filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable is sues th at c ould be raise d on a ppeal. T he brief set s ou t the procedural history of the
case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings. Since
counsel provided a professi onal evaluation of the record demonstra ting wh y th ere are no

ar guable ground s 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.3

Crim . App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Staffo rd v. S tate , 813 S.W.2d 503, 5 09

– 10 ( T e x. 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.
On January 18 , 2024, counsel mailed to Ceasar copies of th e brief , the appellate record , and the motion to withdraw. Counsel informed Ceasar o f his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated January 17 , this Court in formed Ceasar that any pro se

r espo nse wa s due on or before Febru ary 16

. On F e bruary 26 , this C ourt further informed Ceasar
that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on March 18

. Ceasar filed neither a pro se
response nor a motio n requesti ng an ex tens ion of time in whic h to file such a respons e.
We have de t ermined 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 a ppeal. Se e Bledso e v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 005). I n the Anders context, once w e determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. See i d.4

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1

Sco tt E. Stevens Chi ef Justice
Date Submit ted: March 18 , 2024 Date D ecided: April 1 , 2024
Do Not Publ i sh

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from furth er representation o f ap pellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 74 4. No s ubstitute counsel will be ap p ointe d. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to f ile a petition for disc retionary review or fil e a pro se petition for di scretio n ary review. Any petition fo r disc retionary 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 reh earing was overrule d by this Court, s ee T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 68.2, (2) must b e filed with the clerk of the Texas C ourt 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 Proced ure, see T EX

. R. A P P

. P

. 68.4.