## 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 CO URT

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.

B ACKGROUND

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 te rms 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 y ears. This appeal followed.2 A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA

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 t he

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 , 5 73 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.

C ONCLUSION

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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2.

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

Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 m easures to facilitate A ppellant’ 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 Schu lman , 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 judgmen t

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

.