NO. 07-03-0435-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A DECEMBER 14, 2004

______________________________ HORACIO MORALES, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HA LE COUNTY; NO. B1393 8-0101; H ONORABLEED SELF , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

Hor acio Mora les appe als from ajudgment revoking his commu nity supervision and imposing senten ce pursuan t to conviction for possession of a controlled substance (coca ine) in a n amo unt of on e or more grams but less than four gram s. We affirm.-2-

In accordance with a plea bargain, appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of possession of

a controlled substance. The judge of the242nd D istrict C ourt of Ha le Count y found that the evidence substantiated appellant’s guil t, accepted the guilty plea, found appellant

guilty, and sentenced appellant to confi nement fo r two yea rs and a fine of $1,000. The confinement portion of the sentence was suspende d and ap pellant was placed on community supervision for five years. The State filed a motion to revoke app e llant’s community supervision which was heard on October 13, 2003. Appellant pled not true to the violatio ns alleged as the basis for the motion. After hearing testimony from appellant’s community supervisor officer, the trial court found that appellant had violated terms of his probation, revoked the o rde r placing appellant on community supervision, and ordered that appellant serve the two- year confinementportion of his sentence in the I nstituti onal Division of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal Justice. Counsel for appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a Brief in Support thereof. In support of the motion to withdraw, counsel hascertified that, in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-745, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the record has been diligently

reviewe d and tha t, in the opinion of counsel, the record reflects no reversible error or grounds upon which a non-frivolous appe al can arguably be predicated. Counsel thus conc ludes th at the ap peal is frivolou s. In reach ing the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, counse l identifies one possible issue. That issue is based on wh ether there wa s legally and factually sufficient-3-

evidence for the tr ial cour t to find that appe llant vi olated th e terms of h is commun ity supervision. However, after referencing, analyzing and discussing the record of the trial, counsel has disc ussed wh y, under t he contro lling a uthoritie s, there is no arguably reversible error in the trial co urt’s judg ment. See High v. S tate , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cri m.App. 19 78). Counsel has attached exhibits showing that a copyof the Andersbrief and Motion to Withdraw have been forwarded to appellant, and thatcounsel has appropriately advised appellant

of appellant’s right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s motion an d brief. Appella nt did not file a r esponse. We have made an in dependent examination of the record to determine whether th ere are any arguablegrounds for appea l. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102L.Ed.2d 300 (198 8); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds. We ag ree that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, counsel ’s Motion to Withdr aw is gra nted. T he j udgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Phil Johnson Chief Justice Do not pu blish.