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

No. 06-22-00126-CR

AUSTIN LEE LOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 29468

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION Austin Lee Loyd pled guilty to possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five years. 1 One year later, the State moved to revoke Loyd’s community supervision and proceed with an adjudication of his guilt. In open court, Loyd pled true to several of the State’s allegations accusing him of failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his community supervision. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion.

As a result, Loyd was sentenced to twenty-four months’ confinement in state jail. Loyd appeals.

Loyd’s attorney has filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the record and has 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. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California. 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.

On November 8, 2022, counsel mailed to Loyd copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Counsel informed Loyd of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated November 8, this Court informed Loyd that any pro se response See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (Supp.). was due on or before December 8. On January 3, 2023, this Court further informed Loyd that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on January 24. Loyd filed neither a pro se response nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record 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: January 24, 2023 Date Decided: January 25, 2023 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.