### 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. 03-10-00873- CR

P atric k Baca, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 277 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 07- 783- K2 77, H ONO RAB LE K EN ANDERSON, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

I n 2008, appellant Patrick Ba ca pled g uilty to drug posses s i o n and was g iven five
y ear s of def

err ed adjudication community supervision. I n 2009, the trial cour t a djudicated Ba ca’ s
g uilt and place d him on “straig ht probation.” I n 2010, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, alleg ing that Ba ca had violated various terms of his c ommunity supervision. The trial court held a hear ing and g rante d the State’s motion, revoking Ba ca’ s probation and sentenc ing him to five y ear s imprisonment. Ba ca’ s appointed attorney has filed a brief c oncluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel’s brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Ca li

fo r nia , 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1 9 6 7 ), b y prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord and demonstrating that there are n o
arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders , 386 U.S. at 743-44; High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant’s attorney sent Ba ca a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the rig ht to examine the record and file a pro se br ief. See A nders , 386 U.S. at 744; Jack son v. St ate , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se br ief ha s been f iled.
We have revie wed counsel’s brief, the evidenc e prese nted to the trial court, and the
proce dures that wer e observe d and find nothing in the rec ord that might arg uably support the appea l. We gr ant counse l’s motion to wit hdrawand af firm the judg ment of convic tion. 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose
Affir med Filed: Aug ust 4, 2011 Do Not Publish

No substitut e counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further revie w of 1 his case by the court of criminal appea ls, he must either reta in an at t o rn ey t o fi l e a petition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petition for discretionary revie w. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overning proce eding s in the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls)

. An y p et i t ion for discretionar

y revie w must be filed within thirty day s from the date of either this opinion or the date this Court overr

ules the last t i m ely motion for rehe aring filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, afte r which it will be forwa rded to the court of cr i m inal appea ls along with the rest of the filings in the cause . See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate proce dure. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.4, 68.5. 2