Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00443-CR Anthony Ornelas APOLINAR, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016CR5525 Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 27, 2018 AFFIRMED Appellant Anthony Ornelas Apolinar was placed on two years of community supervision for the offense of assault family violence, second offense. The State subsequently filed a Motion to Enter Adjudication of Guilt and Revoke Community Supervision alleging Apolinar violated five conditions of his community supervision. Apolinar pled “true” to violating conditions number 10A and 10C and “not true” to violating conditions number 1, 2, and 27. The trial court found the violation of conditions numbers 10A, 10C, and 2 to be true. The trial court adjudicated Apolinar guilty, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.

04-17-00443-CR

Apolinar’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Apolinar with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (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.). Apolinar did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Apolinar wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Apolinar must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Apolinar must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-