<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">7</A>-00<A NAME="2">244</A>-CR</CENTER>


<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>


<CENTER><A NAME="3">Bonnie Vinetta White</A>, 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">264TH</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="6">45,657</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">MARTHA J. TRUDO</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>


PER CURIAM

<P>Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing her of possessing less than one gram of
cocaine.  Tex. Health &amp; Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West Supp. 1997).  The district court adjudged
her guilty and assessed punishment at incarceration in a state jail for two years.  The court suspended
imposition of sentence and placed appellant on community supervision.  Later, on the State's motion, the
court revoked supervision and imposed sentence.</P>

<P>Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of <EM>Anders v. California</EM>, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by
advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal.  <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 her 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 record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit.  The district court's failure to admonish appellant as required by article 26.13(a)(4), if
properly before us on this appeal, was harmless for the reason stated in <EM>Matchett v. State</EM>, 941 S.W.2d
922 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  <EM>See</EM> Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(4) (West 1989).  The error
committed by trial counsel discussed in the brief does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance.</P>

<P>The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith</P>

<P>Affirmed</P>

<P>Filed:   September 11, 1997</P>

<P>Do Not Publish</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
