## NUMBER 13
- 13 - 00052
- CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRIST I
- EDINBURG

SHAWN PATRICK HALEY , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez Appellant Shawn Patrick Haley appeals from his conviction for the offense of family
violence assault. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.01(b)(2)(B) (West 2011). Appellant pleaded guilty, and pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to seve n years' deferred adjudication community supervision. The State subsequently filed a2

motion to revoke appellant's community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the alleged violation, and the trial court revoked his community supervision, adjudicated h im guilty of the charged offense, and sentenced him to ten years' incarceration. Concluding that an appeal would be frivolous, appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm. 1

I. C OMPLIANCE WITH A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA
Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant's

court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that he has diligently reviewed the record and the applicable law and concluding that, in his professional opinion, "there are no arguable points of error, fundamental or otherwise, upon which appellant could obtain relief from the conviction in the trial court below." See
In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authoritie s.") (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

– 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op. ] 1978), appellant's counsel has, thus, carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2005).3

Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief, the record, and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant, and (3) informed appellant of his right to file a pro se response. 2 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulma n , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed
a pro se response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full exam ination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledso e v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeal s met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders , appellant's attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also
In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

– 80

2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has he ld that " the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding wheth er the case p resents any meritorious issues." In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Wilson v. State , 95 5 S.W.2d 693, 696

– 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).4

(Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court t hat the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his ri ght to file a petition for discretionary review. 3 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4;
see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 3rd day of July , 2013

.

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant 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 discreti onary review. 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 or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was 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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Proced ure 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68.4.