### NUMBER 13
- 1 1
- 00 045
- C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

ALONZO DEWAYNE MARSHALL AK A ALONZ O DEWAYNE MARXHALL, Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION 1



### Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

On April 2 1 , 20 08 , pursuant to a plea bargain, a ppellant Alonzo Dewayne
Marshall ak a Alonzo Dewayne Marxhall pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2005).2

substance , less than one gram of cocaine, a state jail felony. See T EX

. H EALTH &
S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115(a), (b) (West 2010 ). The trial court sen tenced appellant to two years’ imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

— State Jail Division, suspended the sentence, placed appellant on community supervision for five

years , and assessed a $2,500 fine

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.35 (West Supp.

2010 ). On November 18 , 2010, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, alleging that appellant violated conditio ns of his community supervision , including possess i on of
cocaine and possessi on of marijuana in a drug

- free zone. Appellant pl eaded ―not true‖ to the State’s allegations. Following a hearing on December 1, 2010, t he trial court found the State’s allegation of cocaine possession ―true,‖ revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced appellant to twelve months’ confineme nt in a state jail facility. See id.

I. A NDERS B RIEF Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and
has concluded that there is no reversible error. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Te x. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) examined the record and has found no

a rguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served copies of the brief and motion to
withdraw on appellant , and (3) informed appellant of h is right to review the record and to
file a pro se response

. 2 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d

2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that ―the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify 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.3

503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. More than an adequate time has passed, and no pro se response ha s been filed. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we mu st conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). W e have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and find
that th e appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d
824, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (―Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.‖); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Acco rdingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

. III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders , appellant ’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel

. 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.) (―If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing 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 the motion to withdraw. We order that counsel must, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a

2008) (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

- 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).4

copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and advise h im of h is right to file a petition for discretionary review. 3 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA Justice Do not p ublish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) Delivered and filed the 11th day of August , 2011

.

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review 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 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 EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petit ion 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 must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of t he Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.