Opinion filed July 25 , 20 2 4



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 2 3

- 00 260

- CR

__________ JAMES EARL MILES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court Ector County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 22

- 0982

- CR

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted Appellant, James Earl Miles, of the third

- degree felony offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 62.102(b)(2) (West 2018) ; 62.051(a), (c)(7) (West Supp. 2023 ). The evidence presented at the guilt/innocence phase of trial included testimony from the registration officer who discovered unreported social media
accounts that were associated with Appellant. This discovery occurred after the2 officer’s first meeting with Appellant, wherein she explained the registration requirements and Appellant indicated that he understood. The jury found Appellant guilty of the offense . Appellant pled true to an enhancement paragraph

— aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

— which enhanced his punishment range to that of a second

- degree felony. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.42 (a) (Wes t 2019 ). T he jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirteen years in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice , and t he trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. Appellant’s court

- appointed counse l has filed in this court 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 re are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw , an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68

. 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); and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have reviewed Appellant’s response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and rema nd 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).3 Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist

. 1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw , and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

July 25 , 20 2 4 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

.