COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
CHRISTOPHER AARON DILLARD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
§
§
§
§
§ § |
No. 08-10-00055-CR Appeal from 143rd District Court of Ward County, Texas (TC # 07-02-04823-CRW) |
|
|
|
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Christopher Aaron Dillard appeals from a judgment revoking community supervision. We affirm.
On April 20, 2007, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possession of less than one gram of cocaine. The trial court, in accordance with the plea bargain, assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for two years in the state jail but suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on community supervision for five years. The State filed a motion to revoke alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. Appellant entered a plea of true to paragraphs two and three of the motion to revoke but he contested the remaining allegations. The trial court entered a finding of true as to paragraphs two, three, and six, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of imprisonment in the state jail for two years.
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, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377, 87 S. Ct. 2094 (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. Appellant has not filed a brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record and the brief of counsel, 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 of the trial court is affirmed.
March 23, 2011
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice
Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)