
NO. 07-04-0535-CR



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL A



MARCH 27, 2006



______________________________





VICTOR MORENO, APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE





_________________________________



FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY;



NO. B3823-0312; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE



_______________________________



Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Victor Moreno was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to eight years confinement, suspended in favor of eight years of community supervision, and a $2,400 fine.  On July 15, 2004, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision, and appellant pled true to the violations alleged. Following a hearing on the State’s motion, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and assessed the original term of confinement.  In presenting this appeal,
 counsel has filed an 
Anders
(footnote: 1) brief in support of a motion to withdraw.  We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1984, no pet.).
 Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment.  Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit.  In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a 
pro se
 response if he desired to do so.  Appellant did not file a response.  Neither did the State favor us with a brief.

By his 
Anders
 brief, counsel raises several grounds that could arguably support an appeal.  
We have reviewed these grounds 
and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  
See
  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005).  We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s  judgment is affirmed.

Don H. Reavis

     Justice



Do not publish.

FOOTNOTES
1:Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).


