TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00460-CR
Alexander Dolan Davis, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 424TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 34982, THE HONORABLE DANIEL H. MILLS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Alexander Dolan Davis was placed on community supervision after he pled
guilty to aggravated robbery.1 See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 3.
After continuing appellant on community supervision after two prior motions to revoke, the trial
court granted the State’s third motion to revoke after finding that appellant had again violated the
conditions of his community supervision.2 See id. art. 42.12, §§ 21–23. The court revoked
1
It is unclear from the record whether appellant’s middle name is spelled “Dolan” or
“Dolen” as it appears both ways throughout the record. We spell his name as it appears on the trial
court’s judgment revoking community supervision.
2
The State’s motion to revoke alleged that appellant violated the conditions of supervision
in various ways, including the commission of several misdemeanor offenses, the failure to abstain
from the use and/or possession of alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs, the failure to pay certain fees
associated with supervision, the failure to complete an anger management program, and the failure
to obtain a medical and psychological evaluation as directed. After appellant pled true to most of
the allegations, the State presented evidence. Based on the evidence and appellant’s pleas of true,
the trial court found all the allegations contained in the motion to revoke to be true.
appellant’s community supervision and assessed his punishment at six years’ confinement in the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the previously suspended sentence. See id. art. 42.12, § 23.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);
Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988).
Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the
motion and brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and
file a pro se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. No pro se response
or brief has been filed.
We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate
counsel’s brief and the revocation proceeding, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review
and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgment
revoking community supervision is affirmed.
2
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field
Affirmed
Filed: August 15, 2014
Do Not Publish
3