COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
MISTER IVORY, §
No. 08-13-00213-CR
Appellant, §
Appeal from the
v. §
396th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
of Tarrant County, Texas
Appellee. §
(TC# 1234891D)
§
OPINION
Appellant Mister Ivory waived a trial by jury and pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary
of a habitation. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Appellant on community
supervision for five years, and ordered Appellant to pay $1,600 in restitution, $500 in attorney’s
fees, and $274 in court costs.
The State later filed a petition to proceed to adjudication. After being admonished on the
State’s petition, Appellant entered an open plea of true to the acts alleged in paragraphs 1 and 2 of
the petition. The trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, found Appellant guilty
of burglary of a habitation, and sentenced him to imprisonment for six years. Appellant appealed.
We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has moved to withdraw as counsel and 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.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is
wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeal and a discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel’s brief would add nothing to the
jurisprudence of the state.
The judgment is affirmed.
GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice
July 11, 2014
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
2