### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00167- CR

David Ronald Tate, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 652 53, H ONO RAB LE JO E CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appea l pursuant to Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant David Ronald Tate pleade d g uilt y t o t h e o ff ense of assault causing bodily injury with family violence, which was enhanc ed with a prior family violence assault offe nse. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (West 2011). Pursuant to a plea ag ree ment, Tate was place d on probation for ten y ear s. Subsequently , the State filed a motion to revoke his probation, alleg ing that Tate had violated sever al terms and conditions of his community supervision. Tate pleade d not true to the alleg ed violations. Following a hear ing, the district court foun d t h e all eg ations to be true, adjudicate d Tate g uilty of assault causing bodily injury with family violence, and sentenc ed him to nine y ear s’ imprisonment. This appea l followed.

At the hear ing on the motion to revoke Tate’ s probation, the district court hear d testimony from sever al witnesses. The evidenc e tended to show t h at on or about September 22,2011, Tate phy sically assaulted his g irlfriend, Cy nthia Staples. Staples testified that Tate arr ived at her sister-in-law ’s house, threw her clothes in the y ard, and then, afte r she thr ea t en ed t o call the p o l i ce , as s aulted her by punching her, kicking her while she was on the ground, and drag g ing h er along the g round. While Tate denie d Staple’s version of events, additional evidenc e cor roborated Staples’s acc ount, including testimon y fr om the police office r who first arr ived at the scene , and contempora

neous police photogr aphs, which reve aled cuts, scra pes and bruises on Staples’s body

. Additional evidenc e tended to show that Tate had also violated the terms of his probation by twice testing positive for coca ine, missing his probation meeting in May 2011, and failing to make cer tain require d pay

ments. Tate’ s court-a

ppointed atto rn ey h as filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why there

are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. Stat e , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous

v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Tate was mailed a copy o f counsel’s brief and advised of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been f iled. We have revie wed th e r e cord and counsel’s brief and ag ree that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the rec ord that might arguably support the appea l. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

2The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and H enson Affir med Filed: Aug ust 15, 2012 Do Not Publish

3