### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 11

- 00756

- CR John W. NELSON , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010CR4017 Honorable Sid L. Harle , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 19, 2012 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED John W. Nelson pled no contest to a charge of robbery as part of a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the agreement, the trial court found Nelson guilty, fined him $1,500, and sentenced him to five years in prison. On October 25, 2010, the court su spended the sentence of confinement and placed Nelson on community supervision for a period of five years. The State later filed a motion to revoke Nelson’s community supervision, alleging he violated conditions 5 and 10 of his community supervision

. As pa rt of a negotiated disposition that included new04

- 11

- 00756

- CR

- 2

- charges against Nelson for theft and driving while intoxicated, Nelson pled true to the allegation that he violated condition 5 of the terms and conditions of community supervision, which required him to “re port to the Supervision officer as directed by the Court/Supervision Officer.” After a hearing, the trial court found Nelson violated condition 5, revoked his community supervision, and imposed the original sentence. Nelson timely appealed. Nelson’s court

- appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which she concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Nelson was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Nelson filed a pro se brief in which he c ont ends there are arguable points relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings that he committed robbery and that he violated the conditions of his probation as alleged by the State. After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and Nelson’s pro se brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Nelson’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id .; Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1996, no pet.). No substitute cou nsel will be appointed. Should Nelson 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 discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any pet ition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or04

- 11

- 00756

- CR

- 3

- the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this
court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH