## NUMBER 13
- 1 2
- 00 38 5
- CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

R ENEE RODRIGUEZ , A ppellant ,

v . THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 36 th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela Appellant, Renee Rodriguez , ple a d ed guilty to the offense of injury to a child

. See
T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.04 (W est Supp. 2011 ). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State filed several motions to revoke community supervision, the last being filed on September 29, 2011 , and amended on April 15, 2012, alleging two marijuan a2

possessions, failure to report to the supervision office f rom August 2011 through March 2012, failure to submit to urinalysis , and failure to pay court costs and fines. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant pleaded true to all of the allegation s contained
in the motion

. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated ap pellant guilty
and senten ce d h er to ten years of confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely perfected this appeal , and as discussed below, h er court

- appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), a ppellant ’s

court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that h is review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“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 authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State , 11 2 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). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim . App. [Panel Op.] 1978), a ppellant ’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this
Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arg uab le grounds to advance3

on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counse l’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed a ppellant of h er right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 1
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d a t 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 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. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination 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 as well as counsel ’ s brief, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 2 8 (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 appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2 d at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders , appellant’s attorney 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 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) ( “[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must

1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held 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 t he court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

– 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).4

withdraw from representing the ap pellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous

. ”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Within five d ays of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to
advise h er of h er right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 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).

ROSE VELA Justice

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 13th day of December, 2012.

2 No substitute coun sel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, s he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. An y 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. Eff ective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the 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 Procedure 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.