<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0">

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG><CENTER>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>
<CENTER>NO. 03-9<A NAME="1">9</A>-00<A NAME="2">442</A>-CR</CENTER>


<P><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-99-00443-CR</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>



<CENTER><A NAME="3">Thurlow Ronnie Johnson</A>, a/k/a Thurlow Ronnie Johnson, Jr., Appellant</CENTER>


<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>v.</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>The State of Texas, Appellee</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>
<SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF <A NAME="4">BELL</A> COUNTY, <A NAME="5">27TH</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NOS. <A NAME="6">46,011 &amp; 49,755</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">MARTHA J. TRUDO</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>



In number 3-99-442-CR, appellant Thurlow Ronnie Johnson appeals from an order
revoking community supervision; the underlying offense is forgery.  <EM>See</EM> Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 32.21 (West 1994 &amp; Supp. 1999).  In number 3-99-443-CR, Johnson appeals from a judgment
of conviction for credit card abuse.  <EM>See</EM> Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.31 (West 1994).  Appellant
pleaded true in the former cause and guilty in the latter.  The district court assessed punishment
in each cause at incarceration in a state jail for two years.

<P>Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are
frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of <EM>Anders v. California</EM>, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced.  <EM>See also</EM> <EM>Penson v. Ohio</EM>, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); <EM>High v. State</EM>,
573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); <EM>Currie v. State</EM>, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App.
1974); <EM>Jackson v. State</EM>, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); <EM>Gainous v. State</EM>, 436 S.W.2d
137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant
was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief
has been filed.</P>

<P>We have reviewed the records and counsel's brief and agree that the appeals are
frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the
appeals.</P>

<P>In number 3-99-442-CR, the order revoking community supervision is affirmed. 
In number 3-99-443-CR, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>	<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">                                                                       
</SPAN></P>

<P>	Mack Kidd, Justice</P>

<P>Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Patterson</P>

<P>Affirmed on Both Causes</P>

<P>Filed:   November 4, 1999</P>

<P>Do Not Publish</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
