CHARLES MICHAEL RYAN JR v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Charles Michael Ryan, Jr., pled guilty to his second driving while intoxicated offense. The trial court found Ryan guilty of the offense and sentenced him to one year of confinement in county jail. However, in accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court suspended Ryan's sentence and placed him on community supervision for two years.

Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Ryan's community supervision on the grounds that Ryan failed to adhere to the terms and conditions requiring him (1) to abstain from consuming alcohol or other drugs and (2) to complete a “Victim's Impact Panel” within ninety days of his placement on community supervision. Ryan pled, and the trial court found, that the State's allegations in the revocation motion were true. Accordingly, the trial court revoked Ryan's community supervision and sentenced him to one year of confinement in the Marion County Jail. Ryan appeals.

Ryan's attorney has filed a brief which states 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 and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial proceeding. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. 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 14, 2016, counsel hand-delivered to Ryan a copy of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Ryan was informed of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. On December 14, 2016, this Court received Ryan's motion for extension of time to file his pro se brief. We granted Ryan's motion for extension of time, allowing him to file a pro se response on or before January 17, 2017. By letter dated February 13, 2017, this Court informed Ryan that the deadline to file a pro se response had passed and sua sponte extended the deadline by allowing Ryan to file any pro se response on or before March 6, 2017. Ryan did not file a pro se response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record, and we agree that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the trial court's judgment.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   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, she 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.

Ralph K. Burgess Justice