AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed June 1, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-01106-CR JEROME ANTWONE SMITH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 354th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 32030 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Reichek In December 2017, Jerome Antwone Sm ith pleaded guilty to third-degree felony assault/family violence, impeding br eathing or circulation and, pursuant to a plea bargain, was placed on two year s’ deferred adjudication community supervision. In March 2019, the trial c ourt amended appellant’s conditions of community supervision to require him to serve ninety days in county jail and to extend his community supervision by two years. Fourt een months later, in May 2020, the State filed an amended motion to revoke and proceed to adjudication of guilt, alleging eight violations of community supervisi on. Specifically, the State alleged that2 appellant committed new offenses of evad ing arrest, assault/family violence, and assault/bodily injury; failed to pay fees a nd court costs; failed to reimburse Hunt County for urinalysis testing; and faile d to perform his community service. At a hearing in November 2020, appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations contained in the motion, and the trial court accepted his pleas and adjudicated appellant guilty on the original offense. The case then proceed ed to a punishment hearing at which appellant’s probation offi cer and appellant testified. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court sentenced appellant to ten years in prison. On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. He also filed an accompanying motion to withdr aw as appointed counsel. When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must dete rmine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the record. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (emphasizing court, and not appointed counsel, determines whether case is “frivolous” after full examination of proceedings); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting Anders ). If we conclude , after conducting an independent review, that “a ppellate counsel has exercise d professional diligence in assaying the record for error” and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and a ffirm the trial court’s judgment. In re Schulman ,3 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders . It presents a professional evaluation of the record show ing why, in effect, there were no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to file a pro se response. He did not file a response. We have reviewed the reco rd and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivo lous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) 201106F.U05 /Amanda L. Reichek / AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE4 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JEROME ANTWONE SMITH, Appellant

No. 05-20-01106-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 354th District Court, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 32030. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Molberg and Garcia participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered June 1, 2022