Affirm and Opinion Filed June 17, 2022

In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00249-CR GREGORY WAYNE ANDERSON JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 354th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 32539CR MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Carlyle Following Gregory Wayne Anderson Jr.’s negotiated plea of guilty to the charge of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, the trial court placed him on five years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. A year later, the State moved to revoke community supervision and proceed with adjudication based on violations of the community supervision terms. Mr. Anderson pleaded true to paragraph six of the State’s motion, which alleged he used marijuana while on community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court found paragraph six and several other alleged violations true, adjudicated Mr. Anderson guilty of the charged offense, and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement.

Mr. Anderson’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel certifies she provided Mr. Anderson with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw.

The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (analyzing whether brief meets Anders requirements); Arevalos v. State, 606 S.W.3d 912, 915–16 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (same). Though we advised appellant by letter of his right to file a pro se response, he has filed no response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (explaining appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

–2– We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

/Cory L. Carlyle/ 210249f.u05 CORY L. CARLYLE Do Not Publish JUSTICE TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT GREGORY WAYNE ANDERSON On Appeal from the 354th District JR., Appellant Court, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 32539CR.

No. 05-21-00249-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.

Justices Myers and Goldstein THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 17th day of June, 2022.

–4–