
NO. 07-05-0227-CR

NO. 07-05-0228-CR



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL A



MARCH 2, 2006



______________________________





ANTHONY RAY MONTOYA, APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE





_________________________________



FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;



NO. 41,316-D & NO. 41,317-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE



_______________________________



Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Anthony Ray Montoya was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and assessed a six year sentence and a $2,000 fine, suspended for ten years, in cause number 41,316-D.  He was also convicted of possession of marihuana and assessed a six year sentence, suspended for ten years, in cause number 41,317-D.  A hearing was held on the State’s motions to revoke community supervision for violations of the conditions thereof.  Appellant’s plea of true to the State’s allegations resulted in the trial court revoking community supervision and imposing the original sentence of six years confinement.  In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an 
Anders
(footnote: 1) brief in support of a motion to withdraw.  We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no pet.).
 Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's judgment.
  
See
 High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978).  Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit.  In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a 
pro se
 response if he desired to do so.  The Clerk of this Court has also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.
  Appellant filed a
 
response; however, the State did not favor us with a brief.



We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal.  
See
  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991).  We have found no such grounds.  After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s 
pro se
 response, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.  
See
 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005).

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

Don H. Reavis

     Justice



Do not publish.

FOOTNOTES
1:Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).


