Gary Scott v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-06-00400-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GARY SCOTT, APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Gary Scott appeals from the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision in a possession of a controlled substance case. 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 the trial court s judgment.

Background

Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, stipulated to the evidence, and pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of methamphetamine. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced him to three years of deferred adjudication community supervision. Less than six months later, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the application. After a hearing, the trial court found Appellant violated the terms of his community supervision, granted the State s application, and found Appellant guilty of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced him to confinement for fifteen months in a state jail facility.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating 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.1 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 of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted.

The trial court s judgment is affirmed.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered August 30, 2007.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 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.