In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-22-00029-CR

ARTIS RAY DURDEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 276th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. F 14886

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2018, Artis Ray Durden, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to assault of a public servant1 and was placed on community supervision for a period of seven years in lieu of ten years’ incarceration. In 2022, the State moved to revoke Durden’s community supervision, alleging four distinct violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision.

Durden pled not true to all of the allegations, and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion. Durden received a sentence of ten years’ incarceration.

Durden’s attorney filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings.

Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

Counsel indicated that he provided to Durden copies of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw and that he advised Durden of his rights triggered by the filing of an Anders brief.

On May 23, 2022, this Court sent Durden a copy of the appellate record. By letter dated May 25, 2022, this Court informed Durden that any pro se response was due on or before July 22, 2022.

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01. (Supp.).

Durden’s pro se appellate brief was received on July 25, 2022. On that date, this Court further informed Durden that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on August 15, 2022.

We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and Durden’s brief and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

Charles van Cleef Justice Date Submitted: August 15, 2022 Date Decided: August 31, 2022 Do Not Publish

Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.