LAWRENCE KENT CHRISTIAN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Jefferson County

NUMBERS 13-01-337-CR AND 13-01-338-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

  LAWRENCE KENT CHRISTIAN, Appellant,

v.

  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Jefferson County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Dorsey and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

On July 22, 1999, in accordance with a plea agreement, appellant, Lawrence Kent Christian, pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of driving while intoxicated. The trial court found appellant guilty, but deferred the imposition of sentence and placed him on community supervision for a period of two years, and imposed a fine in the amount of $600.00. On May 1, 2000, in accordance with a plea agreement, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of driving while license suspended. The trial court found appellant guilty, but deferred the imposition of sentence and placed him on community supervision for a period of one year, and imposed a fine in the amount of $100.00.

On November 13, 2000, the State filed motions to revoke probation in both cases. Following a hearing, the trial court found appellant had violated several conditions of each of his community supervision orders. The trial court revoked the community supervision imposed on July 22, 1999, and assessed punishment at one hundred-eighty days confinement. The trial court also revoked the community supervision imposed on May 1, 2000, and assessed punishment at thirty days confinement. Appellant appeals from these two judgments.[1]

Appellant=s counsel has 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 (1967), as they present a professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel certifies in his briefs that he served appellant with a copy of each brief and informed appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also filed, on appellant=s behalf, a motion for an extension of time to file a pro se brief, which we granted. No pro se brief has been filed.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, an appellate court must conduct Aa full examination of all proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@ Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record in each appeal and, finding nothing that would arguably support an appeal in either cause, agree that each appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. The judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.

Furthermore, we order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of each appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P.47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 25th day of April, 2002.

[1]Since both cases address the same issues for our review, we address both appeals with a single opinion.