Terry Lee Thomas, Appellant, v. The State of Texas, Appellee. (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Terry Lee Thomas appeals from a judgment revoking his community supervision and adjudicating him guilty of theft of service.  In 2014, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years.  The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging twelve violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision.  At the hearing on the State's second amended motion to adjudicate guilt, Appellant entered a plea of true to seven of the twelve allegations, but he entered a plea of not true to the remaining five allegations.  The trial court found eight of the twelve allegations to be true, found one allegation not true, and did not make a finding with respect to the three remaining allegations.  The court entered an adjudication of guilt, and after the punishment hearing, assessed Appellant's punishment at confinement for a term of 400 days in the state jail.  We affirm.

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App.2008)(“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”);  High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).  Counsel has notified the Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel's brief and the motion to withdraw to Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and to seek discretionary review.  Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex.Crim.App.2014)(setting forth duties of counsel).  Appellant has not requested access to the appellate record.  Further, he has not filed a pro se brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice