### NUMBER 13 - 09 - 00 403 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

- 

## EDINBURG

DENNIS WAYNE MEDLOCK , A ppellant,

v. THE STATE OF T EXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 410th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justice s Benavides, Vela , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides Dennis Wayne Medlock, appellant, pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and sentencing was deferred for seven years’ probation

. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. ' 481

. 115 ( West 200 3 ). O n December 4, 2008, the State filed a

m otion to adjudicate on seven grounds of revocation. Medlock pled true and was2

sentenced to twelve years = imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal
Ju stice

C Institutional Division.
Medlock = s appellate counsel, concluding that "there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal," filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm. 1
I. D ISCUSSION Pursua nt to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant = s
court
- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Although couns el = s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ( A 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 , 112 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), appellant's counsel has carefully d iscussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and coun sel = s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3)

1 This case was transferred to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the S upreme Court of Texas. T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (Vernon 1998).3

informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response within thirty days. 2 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 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 Medlock has not filed a pro se response. See In Re Schulman, 252 S.W.3 d
at 409.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings t o determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
826

– 28 (Tex . Crim. App. 2005) ( A 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. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant = s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appe llant. 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.) (noting that A [i]f an attorney believes the appeal is

2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that A the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should iden tify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the 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

frivolous, he must withdraw from re presenting the appellant. 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 withdra w. Within five days of the date of this Court = s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 3 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4.

___________ _____________ GINA M. BENAVIDES, Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 ( b )

. Delivered and filed the 30th day of August , 201 1

.

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discret ionary 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 that was overruled by this Court. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with th e requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.