MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00756-CR
John W. NELSON,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2010CR4017
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 19, 2012
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
John W. Nelson pled no contest to a charge of robbery as part of a plea agreement with
the State. Pursuant to the agreement, the trial court found Nelson guilty, fined him $1,500, and
sentenced him to five years in prison. On October 25, 2010, the court suspended the sentence of
confinement and placed Nelson on community supervision for a period of five years. The State
later filed a motion to revoke Nelson’s community supervision, alleging he violated conditions 5
and 10 of his community supervision. As part of a negotiated disposition that included new
04-11-00756-CR
charges against Nelson for theft and driving while intoxicated, Nelson pled true to the allegation
that he violated condition 5 of the terms and conditions of community supervision, which
required him to “report to the Supervision officer as directed by the Court/Supervision Officer.”
After a hearing, the trial court found Nelson violated condition 5, revoked his community
supervision, and imposed the original sentence. Nelson timely appealed.
Nelson’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
which she concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Nelson was provided a
copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was informed of his right to review the record and
file his own brief. Nelson filed a pro se brief in which he contends there are arguable points
relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings that he committed
robbery and that he violated the conditions of his probation as alleged by the State.
After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and Nelson’s pro se brief, we find no
reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by
Nelson’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83,
86 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.–
San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Nelson wish 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 must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or
-2-
04-11-00756-CR
the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this
court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk
of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must
comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R.
68.4.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-