COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
SERGIO CORCHADO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
§ § § § § |
No. 08-05-00118-CR Appeal from the 243rd District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 20000D00023) |
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from the revocation of probation. After a contested hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation, revoked the probation, and sentenced Appellant to two years in a State Jail facility, to run concurrent with a collateral revocation. We affirm the trial court’s order revoking probation.
I. BACKGROUNDThe record in the instant case shows that on May 15, 2000, Appellant entered his plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a building. He was sentenced to five years’ deferred adjudication to run concurrent with another offense. On April 26, 2002, Appellant entered his plea of true to a motion to adjudicate guilt pursuant to a plea agreement, and received two years in a State Jail, probated for five years with attendance at a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility as a condition of probation. On February 18, 2005, a contested revocation hearing was held on the State’s motion to revoke probation after which Appellant’s probation was revoked. The trial court sentenced Appellant to serve two years in a State Jail facility, concurrent with a collateral case.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel, although suggesting that a potential issue on review would include an assertion that the State’s evidence was insufficient to sustain revocation of Appellant’s probation, has nonetheless filed a brief in which she 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 file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief or other response.
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 matter discussed in counsel’s brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
The judgment is affirmed.
RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice
May 18, 2006
Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)