### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00068
- CR

James Wells, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 167TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D
- 1
- DC
- 17
- 300210 , THE HONORABLE P. DAV ID WAHLBERG, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant James Wells was placed on community supervisio n after he pled guilty

to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury

. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.053 ; Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a)(1)

. One year later , the State filed a motion to revoke alleg ing that appellant had violated the conditions of supervision by , among other things, committing new
criminal off

enses
. 1 After conducting a hearing, 2 t he trial court granted the State’s motion to
revoke , revo ked a ppellant ’ s community supervision, and assessed appellant’s punishment at

1 The State’s motion to revoke contained nine allegations of violations of supervision conditions that alleg ed that appellant commi tted the offense of aggravated robbery, commi tted the offense of ag gra vated assault by threat, fail ed to report t o his community supervision officer, failed to obtain suitable employment , and failed to pay court costs, supervision fees, restitution, and various fees associated with the conditions of his s upervision.

2 A t the revocation hearing, appellant pled not true to all of the allegations in the motion

. T he State presented evidence as to the allegations , and the trial court found that appellant had violated the conditions of his supervision as alleged in the motion t o revoke

.2

six years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

art s . 42A.751 , 42A.755; Tex. Penal Code § 12. 33

.

Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. Cali fornia by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no ar guable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 81

– 82 (1988).

Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he s ent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion t o assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. To date, appellant has not requested a copy of the appellate record, filed a pro se response , or requested an extension of time to file a response.

We have conducted an independent review of the recor d

— including the record of the revocation pr oceedings and appellate counsel’s brief

— and find no reversible error. See
Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counse l that the record presents no arguably meri torious
gro unds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted

. 3 The
trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision is affirmed.

3 Appointed counsel certified t o this Court that he advised appellant of his right to seek discretionary review pro se should this Court declare his appeal frivolous. In addition, appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition f or discretionary review upon execution of t he Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal . Nevertheless, appointed counsel3 _________________________________________ _ Edward Smith , Justice
Before Chief Justice Ros e, Justices T riana and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: October 25, 2019
Do Not Publish

must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appel late Procedure, which mandates that counsel send appellant a co py of this Court’s opinion and judgment alo ng with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review within five days after this opinion is handed down. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 411 n.35 (T ex . Crim. App. 2008). The duty to send appel lant a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33. It is minister ial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists afte r this Court has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. See id.