## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00001

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 355th District Court

Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR13025
Before Walker, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### J ACOB 

### W

YLIE 

### R OMINE 

### , J R


### . , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEM ORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, Appellant Jacob Wylie Romine , Jr. pleaded guilty to theft under $1,500 with two or more previous convictions. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2018 ). The trial court found Romine guilty;

s entenced him to twenty

- four months in jail; suspended the sentence; placed him on five years’ community supervision; and ordered him to pay a $1,500 fine and $1,249.42 in restitution

. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Romine’s community
sup ervision , alleging that Romine had violated his community

- supervision conditions by fail ing to abstain from th e use of a controlled substance, by failing to repor t in person for an office visit , and by being unsuccessfully discharged from residential

t reat m ent
. Romine pleaded true to all of the allegations. The trial court found each
of the allegations true , revoked Romine’ s community supervision, and sentenced him
to twenty

- four months’ confinement

. The trial court’s judgment ordered Romine to pay $2,25 5.50 in reparations. 1 Romine appeals from the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision

. Romine ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and moti on meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the

1 The amount of reparations is supported b y documentation in the record.3

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 1400 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State , coun sel notified
Romine of the motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should this court hold that the appeal is frivolous, and too k
concrete measures to facilitate Romine ’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Romine the opportunity to file a response on his own behalf, but he did not do so. As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v.
State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wort h 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief . We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivol ous and wit hout merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Per Curiam4

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: October 25, 2018