Opinion filed July 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-23-00214-CR __________ RODERICK SPURLOCK A/K/A RODGRICK SPURLOCK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 29704-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Roderick Spurlock, also known as Rodgrick Spurlock, entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, a third-degree felony, and a plea of true to the enhancement allegation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a) (West 2019), § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016). The trial court found Appellant guilty and the enhancement allegation to be true. Prior to sentencing, a presentence investigation report was ordered, and the parties were permitted to present punishment evidence. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for twelve years in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and no fine.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.1

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

July 18, 2024 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.