Pamela Kay Bailey v. State

Opinion issued March 1, 2007























In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________



NO. 01-06-00462-CR

____________



PAMELA KAY BAILEY, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1020678




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Pamela Kay Bailey, pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. On March 22, 2005, in accordance with appellant's plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on two years deferred adjudication. Appellant did not give notice of appeal.

On March 17, 2006, a second motion to adjudicate guilt was filed by the State. On March 30, 2006, counsel A. J. Broussard was appointed to represent appellant on the motion to adjudicate. On April 11, 2006, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss its motion to adjudicate guilt and amended appellant's terms and conditions of community service. On May 2, 2006, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is without merit. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd).

Counsel represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. No appeal may be taken from an order modifying the conditions of community supervision. Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd).

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (1) See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1. Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).