# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 22

- 00671

- CR Taylor Eugene KREGEAR , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court , Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 2572

- CR

- C Honorable Jessica Crawford , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Wat kins , Justice Delivered and Filed: June 1 4 , 2023 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Appellant Taylor Eugene Kregear pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed Kregear on community supervision for ten years, and ordered Kregear to pay a fine of $1,000. The State later filed a motion for adjudicat ion of guilt, alleging Kregear violated several conditions of his community supervision. At the hearing on the State’s motion, Kregear entered a plea of “true” to violating five conditions. The trial court revoked Kregear’s community supervision, adjudic ated him guilty, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement on both counts with the sentences to run concurrently. Kregear now appeals.04

- 22

- 00671

- CR

- 2

- Kregear’s court

- appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes this a ppeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), an d Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to Kregear and informed him of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2014). C ounsel also provided Kregear with a copy of the appellate record. On January 9, 2023 , this court notified Kregear of the deadline for him to file a pro se brief. This court also extended the deadline for Kregear to file
a pro se brief after counsel informed the court Kregear indicated he would file a pro se brief. No pro se brief was filed. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief

. We conclude there is no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wh olly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Kregear’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id .; Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.

— S an Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 1 Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Do Not Publish

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Kregear 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 after either this opinion is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of R ule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.