COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
| KEVIN DEE HARDIN,
Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
§
§ § § § |
No. 08-03-00066-CR Appeal from the 142nd District Court of Midland County, Texas (TC# CR27305) |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a revocation of probation proceeding. Appellant was originally placed on probation for the offense of theft. The court revoked Appellant's probation and assessed punishment at two (2) years' confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $500. 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 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 and the appellate record have been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to 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.
June 30, 2003
RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice
Before Panel No. 3
Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)