Court Opinion

ID: 9365883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 15:12:34.493824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.082028
License: Public Domain

In The
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                  No. 06-22-00126-CR

             AUSTIN LEE LOYD, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 6th District Court
                Lamar County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 29468

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

           Austin Lee Loyd pled guilty to possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine

pursuant to a plea agreement and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for

a period of five years. 1 One year later, the State moved to revoke Loyd’s community supervision

and proceed with an adjudication of his guilt. In open court, Loyd pled true to several of the

State’s allegations accusing him of failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his

community supervision. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion.

As a result, Loyd was sentenced to twenty-four months’ confinement in state jail. Loyd appeals.

           Loyd’s attorney has filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the record and has found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court

proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of

Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

           On November 8, 2022, counsel mailed to Loyd copies of the brief, the appellate record,

and the motion to withdraw. Counsel informed Loyd of his rights to review the record and file a

pro se response. By letter dated November 8, this Court informed Loyd that any pro se response

1
    See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (Supp.).
                                                      2
was due on or before December 8. On January 3, 2023, this Court further informed Loyd that

the case would be set for submission on the briefs on January 24. Loyd filed neither a pro se

response nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

         We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.                        We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue

supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. Id.

         We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2

                                                       Charles van Cleef
                                                       Justice

Date Submitted:            January 24, 2023
Date Decided:              January 25, 2023

Do Not Publish

2
 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire 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 petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the
date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
                                                           3