Opinion filed July 20 , 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 7

- 00046

- CR

__________ AURELIANO B. ESQUIVEL, JR. , Appellant

V

. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th District Court

Gaines County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- 4589

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Aureliano B. Esquivel, Jr. pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled sub stance, namely methamphetamine. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115(a) , (b) (West 2017 ). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, t he trial co urt convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, and place d him on community supervision. The State subsequently filed a n application to revoke App ellant’s community supervision. After a contested hearing on2

revocation , the trial court found all but one of the State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of
confinement f

or two years and a $1,000 fine. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed co unsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Cou nsel h as provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the reporte r’s record and clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counse l’s brief. Appellant has not filed a

pro se response. 1
Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2008); Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have

1 By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.3

indepe ndently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for di scretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, se nd his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary re view pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 20 , 2017 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.