Curry, Dominiek Nadine v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 338th District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 17, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-02-00108-CR &

14-02-00109-CR

____________

DOMINIEK NADINE CURRY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 875,722 & 889,300

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In cause number 14-02-00108-CR, appellant entered a plea of guilty to possessing a controlled substance with the intent to manufacture or deliver. On May 1, 2001, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for eight years. The State filed a motion to adjudicate alleging appellant violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision. On December 18, 2001, the trial court granted the State=s motion, found appellant guilty, and sentenced her to confinement for six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In cause number 14-02-00109-CR, appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. On December 18, 2001, the trial court sentenced appellant to six years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in both causes.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed briefs in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Copies of counsel=s briefs were delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. Discussion of the briefs would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 17, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Frost.

Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).