IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
APRIL 14, 2003
______________________________
DAVID GRIFFIN, DEAN FRANKS, PETE RICHARTE, AND MISTY CEDILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A COPY NET, APPELLANTS
V.
OFFICE LINE, INC., APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2002-519,695; HONORABLE BLAIR CHERRY, JR., JUDGE
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
ORDERAppellant Pete Richarte, filed a Motion to Dismiss Appellant Pete Richarte's Claims on March 25, 2003. Attached to the Motion was an Order Granting Nonsuit filed on March 3, 2003. This motion is unopposed by appellee Office Line, Inc.
Without passing on the merits of the case, the Motion to Dismiss Appellant Pete Richarte's Claims is granted and that portion of the appeal with regard to Pete Richarte's claims is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1.
Per Curiam
ext-align: center">NO. 07-08-0439-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JUNE 29, 2009
______________________________
REGANELD JOHNSON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B17168-0703; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Reganeld Johnson, entered a guilty plea to the offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. Appellant was sentenced to ten years with the period of incarceration suspended and he was placed on community supervision for a period of five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision alleging that appellant had failed to complete the court ordered community corrections program. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegation and, after a contested hearing, the trial court found that the allegation was true. The trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a period of ten years. It is from this judgment that appellant appeals.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.