<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0">

<p><font size="+1"><strong><center>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</font></center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><hr align="center" width="26%">

<center>NO. 03-<a name="1">00</a>-00<a name="2">268</a>-CR</center>
</strong>

<p><strong><hr align="center" width="26%">




<center><a name="3">Humberto Lopez, Jr.</a>, Appellant</center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><center>v.</center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><center>The State of Texas, Appellee</center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><hr size="3">

<center>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF <a name="4">TRAVIS</a> COUNTY, <a name="5">299TH</a> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</center>
</strong>

<p><strong><center>NO. <a name="6">0991618</a>, HONORABLE <a name="7">JON N. WISSER</a>, JUDGE PRESIDING</center>
</strong>

<p><strong><hr size="3">




</strong>Appellant Humberto Lopez, Jr., was placed on community supervision following
his conviction for violating a protective order.  <em>See</em> Tex. Penal Code Ann. &#167; 25.07 (West Supp.
2000).  The district court later revoked supervision and imposed sentence of imprisonment for six
years.

<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 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>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.

<p>The order revoking supervision is affirmed.

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p>				__________________________________________

<p>				Mack Kidd, Justice

<p>Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Jones<sup><strong>*</sup></strong>

<p>Affirmed

<p>Filed:   January 11, 2001

<p>Do Not Publish

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><sup><strong>*</strong></sup>	Before J. Woodfin Jones, Senior Justice , Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.  <em>See</em>
Tex.  Gov't Code Ann. &#167;&nbsp;74.003(b) (West 1998).
</body>
</html>
