## NUMBER 13 - 20 - 00 191 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

ALEXANDRIA MADISON STAPLES , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.
On appeal from the 198th District Court of Kerr C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva Appellant Alexandria Madison Staples appeals a judgment revoking her community supervision and adjudicating her guilty of possession of a controlled substance in penalty group 2, tetrahydrocannabinol, four grams or more but less than 4002 grams , a second

- degree felon y. 1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12. 33 ; T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.116 (d). The trial court sentenced Staples to eight years’ imprisonment. Staples’s court

- appointed counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. **A NDERS**  B RIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California , Staples ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. 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) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,

an Anders brief need not specificall y 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 , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

– 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinb urg 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) and Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Staples ’s

c ounsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Staples ’s counsel also informed this Court in writing that he

1 This appeal was transferred to us from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001.3 (1) notified Staples that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to w ithdraw; (2) provided Staples with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Staples of her right s to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing a response, and to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if this Cour t finds that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Staples with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to sign and file the motion with the court of appeals within ten days by mailing it to the address provided. See A nders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Staples has been provided access to the appellate record. However, an adequate time has passed, and Staples has not filed a pro se response.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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 c ounsel’s brief and the entire record, and we have found nothing that would support a finding of reversible error

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 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 appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. ”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordan ce with Anders , Staples ’s attorney asked this Court for permission to
withdraw as counsel. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d4 at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

– 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.)). We g rant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Staples and to advise her of her 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).
IV. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment. CLARISSA SILVA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 10th day of June , 202 1

.

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Staples seeks 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. 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. A petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.