Randy Ray Tolbert v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-02-00001-CR

Randy Ray Tolbert,

Appellant

v.

The State of  Texas,

Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 24,906-85

Opinion

The trial court revoked Appellant s community supervision. Appellant s appointed appellate counsel files an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We will affirm.

The brief thoroughly reviews the procedural history. In the brief, counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the record in this case, including the trial court s jurisdiction, the voluntariness of Appellant s plea of true to the motion to revoke, and the effectiveness of trial counsel, and states his opinion that the record reflects no reversible error or grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. See Anders at 744. On abatement, the district court found that counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief on or about October 13, 2002; and on August 23, 2003, informed Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response. See Anders at 744; Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. App. Waco 2001, no pet.). The district court found that Appellant did not want to examine the record or file a response. Appellant has not filed a response.

We have conducted an independent review of the record to discover whether there are arguable grounds for appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Anders at 744. We determine that there are none. The indictment and motion to revoke invoked the district court s jurisdiction, and that court assessed punishment within the range of punishment for the offense. Appellant pleaded true to one of the allegations in the motion to revoke. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). The district court correctly overruled Appellant s objections and correctly sustained objections to counsel s cross-examination. The district court sustained numerous, proper objections by trial counsel; and counsel cross-examined the State s witnesses, examined Appellant, and vigorously advocated a lesser sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must advise Appellant of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Sowels at 694.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed June 9, 2004

Do not publish

[CR25]