Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-26-00081-CR RONDRAEL LAMAR ROSSUM, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 56620-B Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION Rondrael Lamar Rossum was charged with possession of a controlled substance in penalty group one in an amount of four grams or more but less than two-hundred grams, a second-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d) (Supp.).1 Rossum pled guilty and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate his guilt, alleging that Rossum failed to pay restitution in accordance with his conditions of probation and failed to complete intensive supervision probation (ISP) for a period of twelve months. At the hearing on revocation, Rossum signed a stipulation of evidence and pled true to the State’s violation allegations. The trial court found the allegations to be true, adjudicated Rossum’s guilt, and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. Rossum appeals. Rossum’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings. Since appellate counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California. 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). Appellate counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to 1 In his companion appellate cause number 06-26-00082-CR, Rossum appeals his conviction for assault family violence by impeding breath/blood with a previous conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b-3). 2 withdraw as counsel in this appeal. On July 6, 2026, appellate counsel filed a certificate with this Court stating that she had sent copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw outlining Rossum’s pro se rights to him, including the process to obtain the appellate record complete with a motion for pro se access lacking only Rossum’s signature. Appellate counsel states in her certificate that Rossum was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated July 30, 2026, this Court informed Rossum that the case would be set for submission on August 20. We received neither a pro se response from Rossum nor any motions requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like appellate 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. 3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2 Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice Date Submitted: August 20, 2026 Date Decided: August 31, 2026 Do Not Publish 2 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant appellate 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, the 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 (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. 4