Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00372-CR
John Henry SCOTT,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017CR3797
Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 12, 2020
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
John Henry Scott appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision.
In September 2017, Scott entered into a plea-bargain agreement and pled guilty to the offense of
violating sex offender registration requirements. The trial court sentenced Scott to two years in
prison, suspended the sentence, and placed Scott on community supervision for two years. The
State subsequently moved to revoke Scott’s community supervision, alleging Scott had violated
eight conditions of his community supervision. On May 13, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on
the State’s first amended motion to revoke. Scott pled true to five of the eight violations alleged in
04-19-00372-CR
the amended motion to revoke. The trial court then revoked Scott’s community supervision and
ordered him to serve his two-year prison term.
On appeal, Scott’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief stating that he has
conducted a professional evaluation of the record and has determined there are no potentially
meritorious grounds to be advanced on Scott’s behalf. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967). In his brief, counsel refers us to parts of the record that might arguably support the appeal,
but then explains why the appeal is without merit. Counsel’s brief contains citations to the record
and applicable law and includes legal analysis. We conclude counsel’s brief meets the
requirements of Anders. See id.; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Counsel provided Scott with copies of his brief and his motion to withdraw and informed
Scott of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,
319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel informed Scott to file a motion in this court if he wished
to review the appellate record and provided Scott with a form motion for this purpose. See id.;
Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (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.). We set a deadline for Scott to
file a pro se brief and notified Scott of the deadline. No pro se brief was filed.
After conducting an independent review of the record, we conclude this appeal is frivolous
and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw. 1 See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
Irene Rios, Justice
Do not publish
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Scott 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 from the later of (1)
the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
-2-