Full Opinion

Opinion filed July 30, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-25-00217-CR __________ THOMAS JACOB NEGRETE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 244th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C240690CR MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Thomas Jacob Negrete, was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance, to wit: methamphetamine, in an amount less than one gram, a state-jail felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West Supp. 2025). Appellant waived his right to a jury trial. Upon Appellant’s refusal to enter a plea, the trial court entered a plea of “not guilty” for him. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 27.16(a) (West 2006). The trial court subsequently found Appellant guilty as charged in the indictment and assessed his punishment at confinement for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742– 44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, based on our independent review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 1 of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE July 30, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 3