Opinion
NO. 03-15-00473-CR
01-28-2016
James Eric Grant, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 67168, THE HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDINGMEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant James Eric Grant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision after he pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 5(a). Three years later, the trial court granted the State's motion to adjudicate after finding that appellant had violated the conditions of supervision. The court adjudicated appellant guilty, revoked his community supervision, and assessed his punishment at 18 years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 5(b); Tex. Penal Code § 12.33, 12.42(a).
The State's third amended motion to adjudicate contained 16 paragraphs alleging that appellant had violated the conditions of supervision in various ways, including the commission of new offenses (misdemeanor assault and failure to identify), the failure to abstain from the use of illegal drugs (appellant tested positive for cocaine), the failure to report to his community supervision officer, the failure to pay court costs, the failure to pay restitution, the failure to pay certain fees associated with supervision, and the failure to perform community-service work. At the adjudication hearing, appellant pled true to all of the allegations in the amended motion, and the trial court found that appellant had violated the conditions of his supervision as alleged. --------
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988). Appellant's counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant has filed a pro se response but does not raised any meritorious grounds for appellate review.
We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of the adjudication proceedings, appellate counsel's brief, and appellant's written response—and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt is affirmed.
/s/_________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland Affirmed Filed: January 28, 2016 Do Not Publish