Teresa Diane Nicholson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County

NOS. 12-05-00059-CR

12-05-00060-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TERESA DIANE NICHOLSON, APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V. COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Diane Nicholson appeals the trial court s revocation of her community supervision following her convictions for driving while intoxicated and failure to identify with intent to give false information. Appellant was originally sentenced to confinement for one hundred eighty days, probated for fifteen months in each cause. 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 with driving while intoxicated and failure to identify with intent to give false information. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty and waived her right to appeal. Appellant was sentenced to confinement for one hundred eighty days, probated for fifteen months in each cause. Appellant was further fined two hundred dollars in each cause.

On December 4, 2004, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant s community supervision in each cause. On January 20, 2005, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State s motions. Appellant pleaded true to multiple allegations in the State s motions. The trial court revoked Appellant s community supervision and sentenced Appellant to confinement for ninety-four days in each cause. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

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). 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. // 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 our consideration of this matter. 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 December 30, 2005.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)