In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-16-00049-CR
NATHAN COBY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 188th District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 44348-A
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nathan Coby pled guilty to burglary of a habitation and was placed on ten years’ deferred
adjudication community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt
alleging that Coby had committed seven different violations of the conditions of his community
supervision. Coby pled true to the violations alleged by the State, and following the presentation
of evidence, the trial court entered a judgment adjudicating guilt and sentenced Coby to eight
years’ incarceration. Coby appeals.
Coby’s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case,
summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding
that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Meeting the
requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. See 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.
Counsel forwarded copies of his brief and motion to withdraw to Coby and informed him
of his rights to review the appellate record and to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, should
he so desire. Additionally, counsel provided Coby with a complete copy of the appellate record
in this matter. We received neither a pro se response from Coby nor a motion requesting an
extension of time in which to file such a response.
2
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed
the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an
appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders
context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s
judgment. Id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: November 29, 2016
Date Decided: December 16, 2016
Do Not Publish
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,
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 (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.
3