

                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.


