## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00122

- CR

JAMES CARL GOODWIN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. F

- 14966

Befo re Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

In 2018 , James Carl Goodwin pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon,
a third

- degree felony. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 46.04(a )( 2), ( e) (Supp. ). Pursuant to the terms of his plea

- b a r g a i n agreement, the trial court suspended Goodwin’s sentence of seven years’ imprisonment in favor of placing him on community supervis ion for a period of five
y e ars . Further, the trial court ordere d Goodwin to abstain from the use of drugs, complete a life
skills course , and perform twelve hours of community service per month

. In December 2019, the
State moved to r evoke Goodwin’s community supervision on grounds that he, among other

t hings, tested positive for methamphetamine on two occasions, failed to complete the life skills course, and failed to perform community service as ordered. Goodwin pled true to the
all egations in the State’s revocati on motion. As a result, the trial cou r t sentenced hi m to seven years’ imprisonment. Goodwin appeals.
Goodwin ’ s attorney filed a brief stat ing that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that cou ld be raised on appeal

. The brief sets out the procedural
his t ory of the case and summar izes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceeding s
. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced , that evaluation m eet s the requirem e nts of Anders v. California

. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S. W.2 d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 , 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Pane l Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.3

On November 14, 2022, counsel mailed Goodwin co p ies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to w ithdraw

. Goodwin was informed of his rig ht s to review the record and file a pro se response

. By letter dated November 14 , this Court informed Goodwin that any
pro se response was due on or be fore December 14

. Goodwin filed a pro se motion for extension
of time , which we granted , setting Januar y 13, 2023 , as the new deadline for his pro s e response
. After that deadline passed, this Court further informed Goodwin that the case would be set for
submission on the briefs on February 27

. Goodwin did not file a pro se response

. We have determined th at this appeal is wholly frivolous. We i ndependently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 17 8 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders

co ntext, once we determine that the ap peal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.4

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1

Charles van Cleef Justice
D ate Submitted: February 27, 2023 Date Decided: March 17 , 202 3
Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree th at this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute couns e l will be appointed. Should appell ant desire 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 r eview or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. An y petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Cour t , s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk o f the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.