COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
| STEWART AZELL CROSS,
Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
§
§
§
§
§
§ |
No. 08-02-00170-CR Appeal from the 203rd District Court of Dallas County, Texas (TC# F-0037054-SP) |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises from a deferred adjudication of felony aggravated assault committed on May 23, 2000. On December 12, 2000, in exchange for a negotiated plea, Mr. Stewart Azell Cross received deferred adjudication with six years' community supervision and a $300 fine. (1) On February 28, 2002, Mr. Cross appeared before the trial court on the State's motion to proceed with the adjudication of guilt. Mr. Cross pleaded not true to the allegations by the State that he violated the conditions of his community supervision by having contact with and assaulting his fiancée. The trial court found that he had violated the conditions of his community supervision and sentenced Mr. Cross to twenty years' imprisonment. 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. No pro se brief has been filed.
The record reflects that appellant was admonished of the consequences of his plea pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2003).
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.
The judgment is affirmed.
SUSAN LARSEN, Justice
February 6, 2003
Before Panel No. 3
Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
1. The waiver of jury/felony plea form and the plea agreement both have signed documents
under which Mr. Cross plead "guilty." In open court, however, Mr. Cross actually plead "no
contest" and the trial court proceeded using that plea.