1 Jo hn T. Boy d, Chief Justice (Ret.), S eventh Cour t of Appeals, sit

ting by assignment. Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. §75.002( a)(1) (Ver non Supp. 2004). NO. 07-03-0095-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E APRIL 22, 2004

______________________________ LINDMAN W ILLIAMS OPDYKE, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 242 ND DISTRIC T COURT O F HALE COUN TY; NO. B11976-9503; HON. ED SELF, PRES IDING

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S. J. 1
This is an appeal from the r evocation of community supervision (probation) originally granted appellant Lindman Williams Opdyke. On Au gust 16, 1995, a ppellant pled g uilty to the offense of robbery and was sentenced to a ten year probated term i n the Instituti onal Divisi on of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal Justice and a fine of $10,000. On December 17, 2002, upon his plea of trueto the allegations contained in the State’s motion to revoke2

probation, appel lant was s entenced to ten years confinement. F rom this conv iction, appellant gave a timely notice of appe al. Appellant’s appellate couns el has now filed an Anders brief with this court in which he states he has thoro ughly examin ed the trial record and deter mined the appeal to b e without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 -45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 809-11 (Tex. C rim. App. 1978). Appellant indicates that he has mailed a copy of th e brief to appella nt. He ha s also asked to be allowed to

withdraw

from the case.
On November 7, 2003, our cler k notified appell ant of our receipt of the Anders brief and counsel’s motion to wi thdraw and t hat appellant had a right to respond to th e brief. By letter dated November 25, 2003, appellate counsel certi fied that he had forwarded to appellant

his copy of the record and enclosed a ppellant’s pro s e motion for extension of time within which tofile a pro se brief. Appella nt’s motion to ex tend was g ranted and the time within which he might file his pro se brief was extended to Janu ary 5, 2004. However,
we have not received a pro s e brief o r any further motion s seek ing a n ext ension of time within w hich to file suc h a brief.
Before allowi ng counsel to withd raw, we must fir st satisfy ourselves

that the attorney has provi ded the client w ith a dilig entand thorough s earch of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client’s appe al, and then we must determine w hether counsel has correc tly concl uded the appeal isfrivolous. See McCoy v. Court of Appeal s of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We ha ve also3

made an independent examin ation of the record to de term ine whet her there are any arguable grounds that

might suppor

t the appeal. See Penson v. Ohi o, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ( 1988); Stafford v. Sta te , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1991). We have found no such ground an d agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit and is fr ivolous. Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).
Acco rdin gly, the judgment of the trial cou rt is affirm ed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

John T. Bo yd Senior Justice Do not publish

.