Nathaniel Kolarich v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-04-00003-CR
Nathaniel KOLARICH,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1999-CR-5714-W
Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 9, 2004

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

On January 3, 2000, Appellant Nathaniel Kolarich aka Sasha Kolarich pled guilty to the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance in the amount of less than one gram. He was placed on community supervision for two years and fined $1000 pursuant to a plea bargain. In November of 2001, Kolarich signed a waiver of counsel for extension of probation, and the court extended his community supervision for an additional two years. The State filed a motion to revoke Kolarich's community supervision on April 3, 2002. He was permitted to stay on probation and ordered to complete a drug abuse rehabilitation program. The State filed a second motion to revoke community supervision on September 22, 2003. Kolarich pled true to violating a condition of his probation and was sentenced to one year in prison, as well as a $1200 fine. Kolarich's court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a brief in which counsel concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw.

Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Specifically, counsel states Kolarich was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief if he wished. Kolarich has chosen to do so.

In his brief, Kolarich raises two issues. First, he contends that he was treated "unfairly and unjustly" by the trial judge. Second, Kolarich complains that the trial court erred in not giving him credit on his one year sentence for time previously served in jail. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, an appellant's brief must cite authority in support of the issues raised. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Otherwise, these issues are waived. Id.; In re Barr, 13 S.W.3d 525, 555 (Tex.1998). Because Kolarich fails to cite any authority in his pro se brief, we find the issues to be inadequately briefed and therefore waived.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Kolarich's counsel. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Paul W. Green, Justice

Do Not Publish