### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00218

- CR

Aaron Riley , Appellant

v.
The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 9 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1- CR -20-400695 , THE HONORABLE KIM WILLIAMS , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant Aaron Riley of the misdemeanor offense of violation of a protective order

. See Tex. Penal Code 25.07(a)(2)(C). Punish m ent was before t he trial court, which sentenced Riley to 364 days in the Travis County Jail. This appeal followed. Riley ’s court- appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the requir ements of Anders by presenting a profes s ional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id . at 744 -45; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 81

– 82 (1988); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
Counsel has certified to t h is Court that s he has p rovided Riley with a copy of the motion and brief, advised him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied him with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. Sta te ,2 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). No pro se brief or other response has
been filed. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohi o , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988 ) ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 , 826

– 27 (Tex. Cr im

. App. 2005) ; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Cr im

. App. 1991)

. The record reflects that Heather Boyett, Riley ’ s

ex - girlf riend , applied for a protective order again s t Riley in December 201 8. At trial, Boyett testified that she and Riley had dated “ [ o ] ff and on between 2016 and 2018 ” and that a fter the ir relationship ended, Riley had “ continued contact” with her, which Boyett eventually “ couldn ’ t
handle

. . . on [her ] own
. ” 1 A temporary ex parte protective order , filed under the authority of Chapter 83 of the Texas Family Code , s ee Tex. Fam. Code § § 83.001 , .002, was issued on December 28, 2018, was extended on Janua ry 11, 2019, and expired on January 28, 2019

. The

o rder prohibited Riley from, among other t hings , communicating or attempting to communicate with Boyett “ in any manner whatsoever except through attorneys. ” In January 2019, Riley was arrested for a family

- violence offense committed against Boyett. As a result of this offense, a second pr otective order was issued against Riley,
this one under the authority of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. S ee Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. art. 17.292. This order, which was issued on January 18, 2019 , and expired on M arc h 18,
2019 , similarly prohibited Ri ley from “ communicating in any manner ” with Boyett except through his atto rney. Copies of both this protective order and the temporary ex parte protective

1 In a proffer made by the State o utside the prese nce of the jury, Boyett testified t hat before s he obtained the protective order, Riley had been ver bally aggressive and violent with her , including by hitting he r head against a car window, tr ying to enter her locked home and throwing a rock through her window , attempting to force her to have sex with him , threatening to hit her if she did not give him a copy of the key to her home , and threaten ing to kill her.3 order w ere admitted into evidence , a nd th e evidence s hows that Ri ley was served with and had
notice of both orders

. The State presented evidence that d espite the prohibition against communicating with Boyett, Riley called Boyett from jail, using the jail’s recorded telephone system , t hree times

o n January 18 and o n e t ime on January 19, 2019

. A ccording to the system ’ s call log, a copy of which was admitted into evidence, Boyett did not accept or refused the calls on January 18 but

a ccepted Riley ’ s call on January 19. A recording of the approximately t en - minute cal l wa s
admitte d into evidence

. On the call, Riley can be heard asking Boyett to tell him where she was , asking her if she wanted to “ do lunch or something ” “ when [he] got out, ” asking her if she was going to attend his u pcoming court hearing , asking her if the State “ bribed ” her into applying for the protec tive orde r , and asking her if he could call her again. T his call formed the basis for Riley ’ s conviction.
We have reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief. We agree with counsel that t he appeal is frivolou s and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might ar guably su pport the appeal. We grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: December 29, 2022

D o Not Publish