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 briefs in which he concludes the appeals are wholly 

frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 
–2–

738 (1967). The briefs present a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, 

there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel 

delivered a copy of the briefs 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 briefs. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (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 appeals.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. 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, Appellant

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 26th day of September, 2018.