Aldana, Hector v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 205th District Court of El Paso County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HECTOR ALDANA, )

) No. 08-02-00013-CR

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) 205th District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

) of El Paso County, Texas

Appellee. )

) (TC# 75557)

)

O P I N I O N

This appeal arises from a revocation of probation. On December 2, 1994, Appellant, Hector Aldana, pled guilty to the offense of possession of cocaine under twenty-eight grams. He was sentenced by the trial court to 5 years= probation. Appellant=s probation was modified several times, including once on September 8, 1999, which extended the probation period for two additional years. On May 19, 2000, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Probation, alleging Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of probation. A hearing was held on December 5, 2001, and Appellant=s probation was revoked by the trial court. He was sentenced to 5 years= incarceration. We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded 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 advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. 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. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel=s brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

September 12, 2002

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)