Opinion filed July 20 , 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 6

- 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. CR 14580

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 sub stance, namely methamphetamine. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115(a) , (b) (West
2017 ). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, and place d him on community supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke App ellant’s community supervision. At2

the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded true to two of the State’s allega tions in the
motion to revoke. T he trial court found nine of t he State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of
confineme nt 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 state s that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy
of the br ief, 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 s e 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 err or 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.

1 By 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 responsibi lity to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 pe tition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 20 , 2017 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.