Kevin Dee Hardin v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 142nd District Court of Midland County

Annotate this Case

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

 
KEVIN DEE HARDIN,

Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

Appellee.

 

 

 

 

No. 08-03-00066-CR

 

Appeal from the

 

142nd District Court

 

of Midland County, Texas

 

(TC# CR27305)

 
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation proceeding. Appellant was originally placed on probation for the offense of theft. The court revoked Appellant's probation and assessed punishment at two (2) years' confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $500. 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 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 and the appellate record have been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to 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.

June 30, 2003

 

RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

 

Before Panel No. 3

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

 

(Do Not Publish)

 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.