## NO. 12

- 22

- 00231

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CLAYTON ALAN MEISCH , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 145TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORAN

DUM OPINION PER CURIAM Clayton Alan Meisch appeals following the revocation of h is community supervision. Appell ant ’ 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 pleaded “guilty” to one count of aggra vated assault and a second count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Thereafter, t he trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment f

or ten years on the first count but suspended Appellant’s sentence and placed him on community supervision for te n years. As to the second count, t he trial court deferred finding Appellant “ guilty ” and placed h im on community supervision for ten years. Su bsequently , the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and to adjudic ate guilt, in whic h it alleg ed that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions of his community supervision

. Specifically, the State contended that App ellant violated the terms o f his community supervision by violating the law
, having committ ed the o ffense s of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, possessing methamphetamine, and possessing marijuana.
A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion , at which Appellant pleaded “ not true” to2

the aforementioned violations alleged in the State’s motion. In suppo rt of its motion, t he State elicited testimony from , among others, Nacogdoches County Sheriff’s Dep uty Jo shua Sparks

. Sparks testified that
, o n April 6, 2019, he attempted to make contact with Appellant following a complaint that he was at his father’s pr operty engaging in harassment

. Sparks testified that he pulled his patrol vehicle up to the rear o f the Dodge Charger, of which Appellant was the sole occupant. Sparks, while in uniform, approached the driver’s side of the vehicle and knocked on
the win dow. According to Sparks, Appellant drove out of the driveway and continued away in
the vehicle a t a high rate of speed

. The video footage de picting these events from Sparks’s body

camera and his patrol vehicle ’s dash camera was introduced into evidence. Nacogdoches County Sheriff’s Deputy Charles Simpson also testified on the State’s behalf. Simp son testified that on July 5, 2020, he obser ved a vehicle he knew primarily to be operated by Appellant. After verifying that Appellant had active warrants, Simpson initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle. Simpson stated that the driver of the vehicle was not Appellant, but
that when he asked the driver to roll down the vehicle’s rear window, he observed Appellant lying on the floor in the backseat area, whi ch he characterized as Appellant’s attempting to
conceal himself. Simpson detained Appellant and, during his ensuing search of the vehicle,
lo cated both methamphetamine and marijuana concealed behind the vehicle’s glove compartment. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appell ant violated the terms and conditions of h is respective community supervision a s alleged in the State’s motion. Thereafter, it revoked App ellant’s community supervision s , adjudicated h im “guilty” of

ag gravated assault and aggravated assault with a de adly weapon, and sentenced h im to imprisonment for ten years and sixteen years respectively. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in complianc e with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State . Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the

op inion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there i s no error upon which an appeal can be predica ted. 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 pres ents a chronological summation of the procedur al history of3

the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 1 We likewise have review ed the record for reversible error and 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 reve rsible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial cou rt’s judgment. 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 th e opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretiona ry review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re
Sc hulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Crimina l Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his be half or he must file a petition for discretion ary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any 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 the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate P rocedure 68.4. See In re Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered June 8 , 2023. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State
, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdra w as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and too k concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appella te 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 brie f has been filed.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRI CT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 8 , 2023

NO. 12

- 22

- 00231

- CR

CLAYTON ALAN MEISCH ,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appe llee

Appeal from the 145th District Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1421057 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and t he same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no erro r 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

co urt below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

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