### NUMBER 13 - 11 - 00285 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ROLAND JAY FAUST , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez Appellant, Roland Jay Faust , pleaded guilty to the offense of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance , a state j ail felony. S ee T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.112(a) (West 2010 ). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Faust on community supervision for a term of four years and assessed a $ 1,000 fine.2

The State then fil ed a motion to revoke Faust ’s deferred adjudication community supervision alleging that he had violated eight terms of his community supervision. After hearing evidence, the trial court found that Faust had violated five terms of his community supervision , revoked his community supervision, found him guilty of the offense of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance , and sentenced him to two years’ confinement in the state jail. The trial court certified Faust ’s right to appeal, and this appeal followed. We affirm.
I. A NDERS B RIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Faust ’s appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court stating that after diligently reviewing the record and researching the law, he has found no reversible error committed by the trial court and no arguable grounds of error upon which an appeal can be pr edicated. Although counsel’s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. C rim. App. 2008) ( A In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance > arguable = points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities. @ ) (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

– 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Faust ’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he3

has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served copies of the bri ef and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Faust ; and (3) informed
Faust of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 1 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford

, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at
409 n.23. More tha n an adequate period of time has passed, and Faust has not filed a
pro se response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whethe r the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App . 2005) ( A Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate P rocedure 47.1. @ ); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , Faust ’s attorney has asked this Court for permission
to withdraw as counsel. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

– 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) ( A If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from

1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that A the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues. @ In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

– 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).4

representing the appellant. To wi thdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous. @ ) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Faust and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

___________________ ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice
Do not Publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b) Delivered and filed the 12th day of July , 2012.

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Faust wish 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 must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely mot ion for en banc reconsideration that is overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any peti tion for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.