                                  NO. 12-19-00154-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

 JAMES ROBERT MILLS,                              §      APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
 APPELLANT

 V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

 THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 APPELLEE                                         §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       James Mills appeals following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community
supervision. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969). We affirm.


                                          BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a habitation and pleaded “guilty.”
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on
community supervision for ten years.
       Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate alleging that Appellant violated certain
terms and conditions of his community supervision. A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion,
at which Appellant pleaded “true” to all of the violations alleged in the State’s motion. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of
his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion. The trial court revoked Appellant’s
community supervision, adjudicated him “guilty” of burglary of a habitation, and sentenced him to
imprisonment for eight years. This appeal followed.
                             ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the
case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 1
We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.


                                                    CONCLUSION
         As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the
merits and now grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.
         Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
days from the date of either this opinion or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was
overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered November 27, 2019.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
                                              (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no
pro se brief has been filed.


                                                              2
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                        NOVEMBER 27, 2019


                                         NO. 12-19-00154-CR


                                     JAMES ROBERT MILLS,
                                           Appellant
                                              V.
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                           Appellee


                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0137-18)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                       It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
