Opinion issued September 27, 2007
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-05-01146-CR
A.G. WILLIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 185th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 964033
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, to the offense of aggravated assault. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for six years and assessed a fine of $500. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging several violations of the conditions of appellant's community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to some of the violations and not true to others. Based on the evidence presented through witnesses and appellant's plea of true to allegations that he had not paid some supervision fees, the trial court found the allegations to be true, adjudicated appellant's guilt, and assessed punishment at four years in prison. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief. (1) We affirm.
BACKGROUND
At the hearing on the motion to adjudicate guilt, Latasha Stokes, appellant's community supervision officer, testified as the custodian of appellant's probation file and as his probation officer. She testified that appellant had fulfilled his community service obligation for only one month between March and June 2005. She stated that he had admitted using alcohol and cocaine in violation of his conditions of community supervision and that he had not paid several of his supervision fees.
Appellant testified that one of the allegations regarding a positive urine test for cocaine use was not true because the test showed a false positive and a re-test was negative. However, he also testified that he had used cocaine on one occasion and had told his community supervision officer about that use.
DISCUSSION
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief, stating that he has found no arguable points of error to raise on appeal and moving to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant has filed a pro se response to the Anders brief.
A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed. Upon reviewing the entire record, it may determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error or (2) that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record. We conclude that there is no reversible error and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.
We affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (2)
Sam Nuchia
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Keyes.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
1. 2. Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal,
send appellant a copy of this opinion and judgment, and notify appellant that he may, on his
own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 48.4;
see also Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ex parte Wilson, 956
S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex.
App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).