COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
)
TROY LYNN SAMPLE, ) No. 08-02-00132-CR
)
Appellant, ) Appeal from
)
v. ) 142nd District Court
)
THE STATE OF TEXAS, ) of Midland County, Texas
)
Appellee. ) (TC# CR25230)
O P I N I O N
Troy Lynn Sample appeals from an order revoking community supervision. Finding the appeal to be frivolous, we affirm.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
On March 4, 1999, Appellant was charged with the felony offense of driving while intoxicated. On June 1, 1999, he was charged with failure to appear for a felony charge. The trial court found him guilty of both offenses and sentenced him to ten years= confinement, probated for seven years on community supervision, with the sentences to run concurrently. As part of the terms and conditions of release, the court imposed 160 hours of community service in each of the causes. Appellant was ordered to report at least once a month for twenty-seven months and to perform ten hours of service per month. He failed to appear between July 2001 through December 2001.
While serving his community supervision, Appellant was charged with two separate alcohol related offenses. On October 2, 2001, he was charged with failing to stop and exchange information, failure to render any assistance to the scene of an accident, and public intoxication. A few weeks later, he was arrested when police responded to a possible burglary in process. Appellant was apparently intoxicated and was trying to enter his former wife=s house.
After a warrant was issued and Appellant was arrested for these alcohol related offenses which violated the terms and conditions of probation, the State filed a motion to revoke. Following a contested hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of community supervision and revoked its prior order of community supervision. Punishment was assessed at ten years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Jail Division. We affirm.
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See 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). A copy of counsel=s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel=s brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment is affirmed.
December 5, 2002
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice
Before Panel No. 2
Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)