David Thatcher v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-07-00224-CR

David THATCHER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-6017B

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 12, 2007

AFFIRMED

On September 12, 2006, in accordance with a plea agreement, Appellant David Thatcher was sentenced to eight years confinement, probated for a term of eight years, for the offense of robbery. On March 6, 2007, after the State filed two motions to revoke Thatcher s probation,

and without a plea agreement, Thatcher entered a plea of true to four violations of his probation. Specifically, Thatcher acknowledged that he:

(1) Failed to submit to drug testing as directed by his probation officer on or about November 28, 2006;

(2) Failed to report to his probation officer in person during the month of December 2006;

(3) Committed the offense of failure to identify fugitive intentionally gave false information on February 22, 2007 ; and

(4) Failed to report to his probation officer in person during the month of January 2007.

Based on the pleas of true, the trial court found that Thatcher violated the conditions of his probation, revoked his probation and assessed a sentence of eight years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine in the amount of $1,200.00.

Thatcher s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Thatcher with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Thatcher did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response but should only determine if the appeal is frivolous). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH