Opinion
No. 04-12-00445-CR
2013-09-11
Robert KNOWER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011CR10128
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
In March 2012, appellant Robert Knower pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of assault on a family member, enhanced by a prior family violence assault. The trial court sentenced Knower to four years confinement and assessed a $1,500.00 fine. However, the trial court suspended the entire sentence and placed Knower on community supervision for a period of five years. Knower did not appeal from that judgment.
In July 2012, the State filed a motion to revoke Knower's community supervision, alleging he violated several terms of his community supervision. Knower pled true to violating one of the conditions alleged by the State. Thereafter, the trial court revoked Knower's community supervision and ordered Knower to serve a sentence of three years and pay a $1,500.00 fine. Knower perfected this appeal.
Knower's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Knower was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Knower did not file a brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Knower's counsel and affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Knower wish to seek further review of this case in 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 after either the day our judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice Do Not Publish