/3Y6-S5 RECEIVED UKIGINAL Pro Se fe^on &>r ^sa^Ma^is/JB^s^i Abel Acosta, Clerk nCfgASp- ^r^ctf^yfiaioi-hxiaaa. ict_1____jl^_S_us.o.A_b.-R£g-C Ca4Vvex^e_lAQ^es, teAse , Lnriftft gum-^.1, OaT i?v\n^fynnen j repre __S© . r7~IITr/ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS * 0« r> ^ /• <"• afc'; jpcUjg-MS -T%- Abel Acosta, Cierk. ^3 •is> it? or\ Fata jg\n oCteJoey gS^U aJuoJLvYvd;_etW$4i 4^Uat X utas iftev/e/ ffnwd of cwiij Sti__^_^_\£i_lWmiKe--J^^ ft ' '' I D^S QJTi i__c_fl^c^l&_cj^sde^,- _____E__it Sy^Pct' iA V^ Supp\eVNOeA'VQjr^ ffif>oPf m>fnes_Jjt^H^l •\v\is frm£ ocfor-.__po-g ujr _^_CLJa3udcfeiiijL__o_^^ TVvct X ufpL-S urPr,-onfc loW^e SWrvs rfloored on.._fc_v£ yo\ice ^port x _Jcx^ ujprx^inrA ex hpUooq sw^t o^cf Iq\(kck SViorys Ci/id UJoo\rvW ^o/i^ifi Ufcis, (__J__<_J Sh'iPf O^fJ UiVvH- SW)rVS X OurgUg jhp_ fixrt 4-Wt- M^o. ui\\if\e^^ oW.rve-? uoo\udQ£- CoAfxid' r^le bij A-Ue on FcxcJt-V Toam e s_edu^jA_AA£A—fcLU_-JQQfr See o^Aae^A^^ C\ Uayvie bv>t ^ft'P5 ft^jf,^ A^g^ St-o-jes K€ ___^ -jcbe—bpu^g -Vkia-Jjs ofoyAdx fey: g_geu) -\-p»o4-^ _QA foCf # jLd-Q^_if>o^___^ad_OJt IWe. \QCtxUq\T\ q-T We V)vc^i^_^-_AaC '•* 10 Vu A I. \C\Aba-\-(on fe get osji o-fr A_J__X JJj_AiedL_pf__c^(oA and L*£3-S, Se^^_Acedt4<^--^-^^ : -Jj^jwS UQ_ftK s qaO 31—cu2^_2_j__e__^a.cr \__o4" Xn/e beet4— juie^a 5 WeA c)iU£*4 ^/clL(_ \_ iTWUr.iq fv'Wig. fiir V>r^o^nr« ocob^ix^X X ^LfAUe -1-V^- -fapfr 4-Vva.t ^Vxf (^Or1_>__pi--(LS-e 5j_i v e -AAJ iAPjq -VrCM o<~ rpAvictfoA o-p Si_A_i£*ace £V_, „rwtj beJi £)}T\ Pox/tt j_i/e ~Vo Hy E3tfriU<:^U>Wg£- X o^Sk ^i Courts -fo pieas? acc^pi_Ji_ilj__^^_Ky\-L|- pie^ CP for pefitton £nr diScf-frono__f rev/reou. A3^_spsc4J2u^ /__ti___£_=_1Sl Jfourtf) Court of glppeate ^>an Antonio, Gtexag MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00643-CR Lonnie PRICE, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011CR9144 Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 2, 2015 AFFIRMED Appellant, Lonnie Price, pled no contestto the chargeof burglary of a habitation. On June 11,2013, the trial court signed an Order of Deferred Adjudication, suspended appellant's sentence, and placed him on community supervision for two years. Later, the State moved to revoke appellant's community supervision on several grounds, including new offenses of evading arrest and assault, as well as failure to take a drug test in compliance with the terms of his community supervision. At a hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant pled "true" to violating a condition of his community supervision, but he pled "nottrue" to the two new criminal offenses. On June 04-14-00643-CR 17, 2014, the trial court revoked appellant's deferred adjudication community supervision, signed a Judgment Adjudicating Guilt, and sentenced appellant to twenty years' confinement. On appeal, appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant was informed of his right to review the record and of his right to file a pro se brief. Appellant filed apro se brief raising various fact issues related to his arrest for burglary of a habitation and asking this court to review the case "due to lack of evidence and hearsay." Appellant did not appeal from the June 11, 2013 Order of Deferred Adjudication. We also note that the "Trial Court's Certification of Defendant's Right of Appeal" signed after the original plea agreement states this case"is a plea-bargain, andthe defendant hasNO rightof appeal." Therefore, we do not consider appellant's pro se complaints related to the Order of Deferred Adjudication. After reviewing the record, we agree the appeal from the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel's motion to withdraw. 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.l (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).' Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice DO NOT PUBLISH 1No substitute counsel will be appointed. SeeIn re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant 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 from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P.68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4. -2- ^o ..•3 -C 5 o «S * *••» 1 < d> r& W--THF COURI CF ArFL-:-_- , uC ITV,MANTCNlH.lt.^- _j -V" £ -o! -) <© c -m ,2015 NOV 30 PM2-21 $ 70 2 -r- P # ^rS _£ <^ X> o -.j ffi r r i\} f'i in t i -i in 5 £ P P A1 £7 % 9 %* .^v* :>?;-; ;!j^ - ?, sv 'i'^ Tfi '^v\ to c y jk 5j] P £ c^- (9 c >i v> P r- -o ft -o r- n *S! o p *s ^-~ •+• -h v/> -a 1 1 I J ;l | I Q- ' f -' •>' i /• / ; 1 -t- - j 5 e f( 3' 3 S' 6l \ v V i r -r