NOS. 12-06-00132-CR
12-06-00133-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
MARTIN GAMEZ, § APPEALS FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Martin Gamez appeals the revocation of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded guilty to two separate offenses of driving while intoxicated and was placed on community supervision. Later, Appellant was found to have violated the terms of his community supervision and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. His appellate counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).1 We affirm.
Background
A Smith County grand jury indicted Appellant in each of two cases for the offense of driving while intoxicated. In each case, the indictment alleged that Appellant had twice before been convicted of driving while intoxicated, making the offenses felonies of the third degree. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (Vernon 2006). Appellant pleaded guilty in October 2001 and was placed on community supervision for ten years. In March 2006, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s community supervision alleging that he failed to make payments as ordered, failed to report, and moved without notifying his supervision officer. A hearing was held, and Appellant denied the allegations. The trial court found the allegations to be true and assessed punishment at ten years of imprisonment in each case. This appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders. Counsel states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that she is well acquainted with the facts of each of these cases. In compliance with Anders and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.
We have considered the brief submitted by Appellant’s counsel and have conducted our own independent review of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Conclusion
As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After considering the record and the brief and having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.
Opinion delivered March 14, 2007.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1 Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief. The State waived the filing of a brief.