Opinion filed March 30 , 2018



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 7

- 00224

- CR

__________ BYRON KEITH PATTERSON , Appellant

V

. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 90 th District Court Stephens County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F31706

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Byron Keith Patterson, originally pleaded guilty to the second

degree felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and true to an enhancement allegation

. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on commun ity supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to proceed with an ad ju dication of Appellant’s guilt. At a hearing on the
State’ s motion, the trial court found the State’s allegations to be true, revoked2

Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at confine ment for ten years and a fine of $3,000

. We dismiss the appeal. Appe llant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and a motion for pro se access to th e appellate record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a response. 1
Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinio n explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have

1 This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to fil e a response to counsel’s brief, as well as additional time in response to two pro se motion s for extensi on of time to file a response. We also provided Appellant with a copy of the clerk’s rec ord and the reporter’s record.3

independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se pe tition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

M arch 30 , 2018 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: W illson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 2

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Ju stice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.