Bertha Mae Jackson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County

NO. 12-07-00101-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BERTHA MAE JACKSON, APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Bertha Mae Jackson appeals the revocation of her deferred adjudication community supervision, following which she was sentenced to imprisonment for two years. Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of less than one gram of cocaine and pleaded guilty. The trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty and placed her on community supervision for five years.

On October 25, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant s community supervision. In its motion, the State alleged that Appellant had violated eleven of the terms and conditions of her community supervision. On January 19, 2007, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State s motion. At the hearing, Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the State s motion.1 Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court found the allegations to which Appellant pleaded true were true, revoked Appellant s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for two years. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Appellant s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.2 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered January 9, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 The trial court stated on the record that it would denote not true pleas to allegations involving payment. From our review of the State s motion, there are five allegations that Appellant failed to make payments as a term or condition of her community supervision.

2 Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief and that Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.