AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed September 26, 2018.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00195
- CR No. 05
- 18
- 00196
- CR CODY WARDEN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. MA
- 1704576
- N, MA
- 1761228
- N 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Fillmore Appellant Cody Warden waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily injury and violation of a protective order. Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court sentenced appellant to 365 days in the county jail, probated for twenty months in each case. The trial court also assessed a $200 fine in the violation of protective order case. The State later moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision alleging appellant violated several conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motions. The trial court granted the State’s motions, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and assessed punishment at 365 days in the county jail in each case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed brief s in which he concludes the appeals are wholly
frivolous and without merit. The brief s meet the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S.– 2

–

738 (1967). The brief s present a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no argu able grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 81 2 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders ) . Counsel delivered a copy of the brief s to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ( noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s br ief s
. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal s
. We affirm the trial court’s judgment s
.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47
180195F.U05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
CODY WARDEN, Appellant
No. 05

- 18

- 00195

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA

- 1704576

- N. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore. Justices Lang and Schenck participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court revoking community supervision is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 26th day of September, 2018.– 4

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
CODY WARDEN, Appella nt No. 05

- 18

- 00196

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA

- 1761228

- N. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore. Justices Lang and Schenck participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court revoking community supervision is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 26 th day of September, 2018.