TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 50,373, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Appellant filed a pro se brief. In it, he addresses the allegations that he violated the conditions of supervision by failing to pay various fees and costs and by failing to participate in community service projects. The record reflects, however, that the court did not find these allegations to be true. The court revoked solely on the basis of appellant's commission of subsequent criminal offenses. In his pro se brief, appellant concedes the subsequent offenses.
We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and the pro se brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
__________________________________________
Lee Yeakel, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed: January 10, 2002
Do Not Publish