## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07

- 15

- 00451

- CR

MELVIN BLADIMAR RIVA S, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 242nd District Court

Castro County, Texas Trial Court No. B3341

- 1108, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding



### June 1 , 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Melvin Bladimar Rivas (appellant) appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated, third or more. He pled guilty to the charge and was se ntenced to five years in prison. H owever , the sentence was suspended , and the trial court placed him on probation or community supervision for f ive years . Subsequently, the State moved to

r evoke his probation . A hearing was held on the motion whereat appellant pled not true to the allegations

. Upon receiving evidence, though , the trial court granted the motion and levied the original five year sentence

. After he perfected a timely appeal and was2

appointed counsel, the latter filed both a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief

. 1 Through those documents, he certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. A ccompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel’s belief that there wa s no reversible error an d of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se

. So too did he represent that the appellate record was provided to appellant. To date , no response has been filed by appellant

. The record discloses that appellant was placed on probation in February of 2014 and ordered to report monthly. He stated that he was a U.S. citizen at the time he ple d guilty and that his birthplace was Roswell, Georgia. However, he was deported on March 17, 2014 to “his country, Honduras.” He later returned to the United States and was arrested in Kansas on August 19, 2015. 2 According to the probation officer, appellant had bee n living in that state for approximately five months prior to his arrest. Other evidence of record indicates that appellant failed to report, pay community supervision fees and perform community service as required by the conditions of his probation. Tho se were the grounds upon which revocation was both sought and based. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders , appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal , which areas included the original p lea of guilty and plea hearing. C ounsel then explained why th e issues lacked merit. W e conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403

1 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

- 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967 ).

2 Appellant testified at the revocation hearing that he may face federal prosecution for re - entering the United States.3

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). No such error was uncovered. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted , and the judgment is affirmed

. 3

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.

3 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.