NUMBERS 13-15-00195-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG CARMINA PADROZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court of Live Oak County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes Appellant Carmina Padroz appeals her conviction of possession of a controlled substance: marijuana, a second degree felony. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(b)(5) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46 2015 R.S.). Appellant judicially confessed to the offense and was placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. The State subsequently moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision, alleging appellant violated numerous terms of community supervision conditions.1 Specifically, the State’s motion to revoke alleged appellant: (1) failed to report in person during the term of supervision; (2) failed to submit to random urinalysis; (3) failed to attend alcoholics anonymous or narcotics anonymous meetings; (4) failed to attend sanctioned and sponsored peer support group meetings; (5) failed to make monthly probation payments; (6) failed to pay court costs; (7) failed to pay restitution; and (8) failed to pay the monetary fine. After appellant plead true to every allegation, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced her to six years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal

Appellant failed to return to Texas, and the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt and to revoke her community supervision. On December 14, 2014, appellant was located and arrested in Arizona. In 2015, she was extradited from Arizona to Texas. authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, that counsel has: (1) notified the appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided the appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed the appellant of appellant’s rights to file a pro se response,2 review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if the court of appeals concludes that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record, lacking only the appellant’s signature and the date and including the mailing address for the court of appeals, with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318-19, Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23.

In this case, appellant filed neither a timely motion seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so. No pro se brief was filed.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. 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.) (“[I]f 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 counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. 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).

GREGORY T. PERKES Justice Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 3rd day of September, 2015.

Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.