### 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. 03-10-00394- CR NO. 03-10-00395- CR

Steven P aul Wil son, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F LEE CO UNTY, 21ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS . 700 4 & 703 6, H ONO RAB LE REVA TOW SLEE CO RB ETT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Steven Paul Wil son pleade d g uilty and judicially confe ssed to committing
ag g rava ted assault ag ainst a public serva nt (ca use nu m b er 7004) and driving while intox icated, third offe nse (ca u s e number 7036). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2010), § 49.04 (West 2003), § 49.09 (West Supp. 2010). There wer e plea bargai n s i n b o t h case s. I n number 7004, the trial court defe rre d adjudication and place d appellant on community supervision.
I n number 7036, the court adjudg ed appellant g uilty and assessed punishment at five y ear s in prison, but suspended imposition of sentence and plac ed appe llant on community supervision. The State subsequentl y fi l ed motions to adjudicate and to revoke probation. At a hear ing on the motions, appellant pleade d true to the alleg ed violations of the co n d i t i o n s of supervision. The court adjudg ed appellant g uilty in cause number 7004 and sentenc ed him toforty -five y ear s in p ri s on. The court revoke d supervision in cause number 7036 and imposed the

five-y ear sentenc e pre viously

assessed. Appellant’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea ls are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by prese nt i n g a p rofe ssional evalua tion of the

rec ord demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978 ); C u r r i e v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant rec eived a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. A pro se br ief ha s been f iled.
We have revie wed the rec ord and find no reve rsible err or. See Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that the appea l is frivolous. The issues raised in appellant’ s
pro se brief have no arg uable merit on the prese nt rec ord. See Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 767; Bledsoe , 1
178 S.W .3d at 827. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is gr anted.

Appellant’s ineffec tive assistance of counsel claim rests in part on asser tions of fa ct t h at are 1 outside the appe llate re cord. 2The judgme nt of conviction in cause number 70 0 4 a nd the order revoking community supervision in cause number 7036 a re a ffirme d.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 3, 2011 Do Not Publish

3