          TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN


                                        NO. 03-02-00235-CR




                                 Mark Lagrada Canete, Appellant

                                                    v.

                                    The State of Texas, Appellee


      FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
            NO. A-99-0652-S, HONORABLE CURT F. STEIB, JUDGE PRESIDING




               Appellant Mark Lagrada Canete was placed on community supervision after being

convicted of burglary of a habitation on a plea of guilty. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 30.02 (West Supp.

2002). His supervision was revoked after he admitted several of the violations alleged in the motion to

revoke.

               Appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 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.

                 We have reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel=s motion to

withdraw is granted.

                 The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.




                                                 Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: August 30, 2002

Do Not Publish
