Wood Jr., Erron v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 272nd District Court of Brazos County

Affirmed and Opinion filed April 3, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-02-00498-CR &

14-02-00499-CR

____________

ERRON WOOD, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 25,495-272 & 26,531-272

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

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance on August 15, 1998. On that same date, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on deferred adjudication probation for five years. On January 8, 1999, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of delivery of a controlled substance. On that date, the trial court sentenced appellant to ten years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division, subject to a term of confinement in the Aboot camp@ program. After he successfully completed the boot camp program, appellant returned to court and was placed on eight years= community supervision. On March 5, 2002, the State filed a motion to revoke in both cases. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, found appellant guilty on the possession charge, and revoked his probation on both charges. The trial court sentenced appellant to seven years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division on each charge, sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are 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 (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).

A copy of counsel=s brief was 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 records and counsel=s brief and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. A discussion of the brief 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 April 3, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).