Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-26-00253-CR ADRIAN LUJAN, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Tarrant County, Texas1 Trial Court No. 1826144, Honorable Vincent Giardino, Sitting by Assignment August 27, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ. Appellant, Adrian Lujan, appeals from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,2 and sentencing him to seventeen years of confinement. His court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw 1 This cause was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. Where there is a conflict with the precedent of this Court, this appeal has been decided in accordance with the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3; Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 2022). 2 TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(2). supported by a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California,3 concluding that no arguable grounds for reversal exist. After conducting an independent review of the record, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND This appeal arises from an adjudication of guilt following an initial order of deferred- adjudication community supervision. The State previously indicted Appellant for second- degree felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In April 2025, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense, and the trial court placed him on ten years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision. In July 2025, the State filed a petition to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and revoke his supervision. The motion alleged nine violations of the conditions of supervision: (1) commission of a new aggravated assault; (2) possession of marijuana; (3) manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance in Penalty Group 1; (4) unlawful carrying of a weapon, (5) possession of a controlled substance in Penalty Group 3; (6) possession of a controlled substance in Penalty Group 1 or 1B; (7) possession of a firearm on two separate dates; (8) failure to pay supervision fees; and (9) failure to complete community service. The trial court conducted a bifurcated revocation hearing. The State waived allegations (1)–(3), (5), and (6), and it amended allegation (7) to include just one date. \Appellant pleaded true to allegations (8) and (9) but pleaded not true to allegations (4) and (7). 3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). When appointed appellate counsel, after a conscientious examination of the record, concludes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Id. 2 The State offered evidence on the two contested allegations. Officer Kyle Bean testified that after learning Appellant had an outstanding warrant for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, he subsequently located Appellant’s vehicle and detained him. Officer Kristopher Kopiczak discussed the inventory search of Appellant’s vehicle, which resulted in the discovery of two firearms, suspected narcotics, digital scales, and $7,824 in cash. Body camera footage and photographs were admitted as additional evidence. A CSCD officer testified that, although Appellant always reported as required and maintained a pleasant demeanor, he never paid supervision fees or completed community service. The trial court found allegations (4) and (7)–(9) true. At sentencing, Appellant’s mother testified that he was not a violent person and pledged to support his rehabilitation if given another chance; although, she also acknowledged on cross- examination that revocation would be fair given his repeated violations. Ultimately, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to seventeen years’ confinement. Appellant timely filed Defendant’s Motion for New Trial on February 19, 2026, which was overruled by operation of law. This appeal followed. ANDERS FRAMEWORK An Anders brief must present a professional evaluation of the record and explain why the appeal presents no arguable grounds for reversal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel need not identify specific arguable points where none exist, but the brief must include record references and pertinent legal authorities. Id.; Davis v. State, 683 S.W.3d 828, 829–30 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2023, no 3 pet.). Counsel must also serve the client with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw and inform the client of the right to file a pro se response and a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408; see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). This Court, in turn, must independently examine the entire record to determine whether any nonfrivolous issue exists. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). Appellate counsel’s brief meets the necessary requirements. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no grounds that could be argued non- frivolously on appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error and no arguable grounds for relief. Counsel has also demonstrated he has complied with the requirements by (1) providing copies of the brief and the appellate record to Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. By letter on June 16, 2026, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s motion. At Appellant’s request, he was granted an extension to respond on or before August 21, 2026. To date, Appellant has neither filed his response nor otherwise contacted this Court. The State has not favored us with a brief. 4 ANALYSIS By his Anders brief, counsel evaluated the sufficiency of the evidence, all phases of the proceedings, all adverse rulings, including Appellant’s evidentiary objections, sentencing, and assistance of counsel. He candidly discussed potential issues and conceded no harmful errors occurred during trial which would require reversal of Appellant’s conviction and sentence. Thus, he concluded there are no non-frivolous issues to present on appeal, and the appeal is without merit and wholly frivolous. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief. Our independent review confirms appellate counsel’s assessment that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Proof of a single violation of the conditions of supervision supports an adjudication of guilt. Velasco v. State, No. 02-24-00219-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6206, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 14, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Appellant’s pleas of true to allegations (8) and (9), standing alone, support the trial court’s decision to adjudicate. So, after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we (1) agree that there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction, (2) affirm the trial court’s judgment, and (3) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4 4 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall (1) send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment and (2) inform Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is informational and ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33. 5 CONCLUSION The trial court’s judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Laura A. W. Pratt Justice Do not publish. 6