TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-02-00179-CR
Calvin Conway, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 99-294-K277, HONORABLE DON HUMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In January 2000, appellant Calvin Conway pleaded guilty to attempted indecency with a
child by contact. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 15.01(a) (West 1994), ' 21.11(a)(1) (West Supp. 2003).
Pursuant to a plea bargain, the district court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community
supervision. He now appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered after the court revoked supervision,
adjudicated him guilty, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for seven years.
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 argues that he did not violate the conditions of
supervision as found by the district court. The decision to proceed with an adjudication is not appealable.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (West Supp. 2003). Thus, the pro se brief presents nothing
for review.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs and agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel=s motion to
withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Mack Kidd, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel
Affirmed
Filed: January 30, 2003
Do Not Publish
2