NO. 12-18-00082-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CHASE LEE CUTLER, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Chase Cutler appeals following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community 

supervision. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and 

pleaded “guilty.” Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was placed on eight years deferred 

adjudication community supervision.

Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision 

alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions thereof. A hearing was conducted on 

the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to all of the remaining allegations after the 

State abandoned two. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated 

the terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion. The trial 

court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him “guilty” of aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon, and sentenced him to imprisonment for eight years. This appeal followed.
2

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the 

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In 

compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the 

case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 

We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having 

done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

hereby granted and the appeal is affirmed.

As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five 

days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise 

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. 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 that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.

Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with 

 

1

In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified 

Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took 

concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired 

and no pro se brief has been filed.
3

the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

408 n.22.

Opinion delivered December 21, 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 21, 2018

NO. 12-18-00082-CR

CHASE LEE CUTLER,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0673-17)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.