      TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN


                                       NO. 03-08-00252-CR



                                 Bobby Lee Espinoza, Appellant

                                                  v.

                                   The State of Texas, Appellee


      FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
          NO. 56959, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING



                             MEMORANDUM OPINION


               In 2004, appellant Bobby Lee Espinoza pled guilty to tampering with physical

evidence and was placed on deferred adjudication for five years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09

(West Supp. 2008). In 2007, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging various violations of her

deferred-adjudication conditions. Appellant pled true to the State’s allegations without an agreement

on punishment, and after a hearing, the trial court sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment.

               Appellant’s appointed attorney has 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, 743-44

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at

743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d

684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised her that she had the right to

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). 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. Appellant pled true both to the underlying offense and to the State’s allegations

of violations of conditions, stating that she understood and waived her rights and that she understood

the range of possible punishment. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1



                                               ___________________________________________

                                               David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: August 27, 2008

Do Not Publish




       1
          No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of
her case by the court of criminal appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.
P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date
this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The
petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal
appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition
for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure.
See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5.

                                                  2
