Duralia, Michael David v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 70th District Court of Ector County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MICHAEL DAVID DURALIA, )

) No. 08-02-00196-CR

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) 70th District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

) of Ector County, Texas

Appellee. )

) (TC# A-29,100)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal arises from a revocation of probation. On February 11, 2002, Appellant, Michael David Duralia, entered a plea of guilty to the forgery by passing. He was sentenced by the trial court to 2 years= confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The sentence was probated, and Appellant was placed on community supervision for 5 years.

On April 3, 2002, a hearing was held on the State=s First Amended Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. Appellant plead not true to the allegations in the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant=s probation and assessed punishment at a term of two years= confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.

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, 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. 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.

May 22, 2003

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Panel No. 3

Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)