Opinion filed July 20, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-16-00352-CR

__________

JEREMY DALTON STAMBAUGH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 266th District Court

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR14580

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

Jeremy Dalton Stambaugh pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of

possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance, namely 

methamphetamine. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West 

2017). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court convicted 

Appellant, assessed his punishment, and placed him on community supervision. The 

State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. At 
2

the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded true to two of the State’s allegations in the 

motion to revoke. The trial court found nine of the State’s allegations to be true, 

revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of 

confinement for two years, with no fine. We dismiss the appeal. 

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The 

motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously 

examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a motion 

for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right 

to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a 

pro se response.1 

Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); 

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 

S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and 

pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds 

no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause 

to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

 

1By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief. 
3

2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and 

should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the 

attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the 

opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along 

with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 20, 2017

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.