NO. 07-01-0398-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
DECEMBER 31, 2002
______________________________
TERENCE BLAKE POLK, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B13698-0004; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
Appellant Terence Blake Polk appeals from a judgment revoking community
supervision and imposing sentence pursuant to his conviction for burglary of a habitation.
We affirm.
Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary
of a habitation. The judge of the 242nd District Court of Hale County found that the
evidence substantiated appellant’s guilt, accepted the guilty plea, found appellant guilty,
and sentenced him to confinement for 10 years and a fine of $1,000. The confinement
portion of the sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on community
supervision for 10 years.
On March 1, 2001, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community
supervision. The motion was heard on September 7, 2001. The trial judge found that
appellant violated his probation terms, revoked the order placing appellant on community
supervision, and ordered that appellant serve the confinement portion of his sentence in
the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a
general notice of appeal.
Counsel for appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a Brief in Support thereof.
In support of the motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that, in compliance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the record has
been diligently reviewed and that in the opinion of counsel, the record reflects no reversible
error or grounds upon which a non-frivolous appeal can arguably be predicated. Counsel
thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has discussed why, under the
controlling authorities, there is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings or
judgment. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Counsel has attached exhibits showing that a copy of the Anders brief and Motion
to Withdraw have been forwarded to appellant, and that counsel has appropriately advised
appellant of appellant’s right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s motion
and brief. Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s motion and brief.
2
We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether
there are any arguable grounds for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct.
346, 102 L.Ed 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.
1991). We have found no such grounds. We agree that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is granted. The judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Phil Johnson
Justice
Do not publish.
3