COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
|
LUPE BARRERA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
'
'
'
'
'
' |
No. 08-01-00395-CR Appeal from the 143rd District Court of Reeves County, Texas (TC# 91-12-05520-CRR) |
O P I N I O N
This appeal arises from a revocation of community supervision. On April 10, 1992, appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of burglary of a building as a second-degree felony. He was convicted, and the court assessed punishment pursuant to a plea agreement at confinement for six years and a fine of $750. The sentence was suspended in favor of six years probation and performance of 250 hours of community service. On September 14, 2001, after several extensions of the probation period, the community supervision was revoked for violation of the terms and conditions. At the hearing for revocation of community supervision, appellant pleaded not true. The district court found otherwise. The original sentence of six years= confinement was reinstated and modified to rescind the fine. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that 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 presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, and appellant=s pro se 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
SUSAN LARSEN, Justice
October 3, 2002
Before Panel No. 1
Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)