Court Opinion

ID: 2891131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 21:08:46.765156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:37.185858
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-03-0181-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A 

JANUARY 29, 2004

______________________________

JOSE SANTOS CERVANTES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A14649-0209; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following his conviction for theft, appellant Jose Santos Cervantes was placed on community supervision for five years.  Upon the State’s motion to revoke community supervision for violations of the conditions thereof, the trial court (1) conducted a hearing at which appellant plead true to the State’s allegations, (2) heard evidence, and (3) granted the State’s motion.  Appellant was sentenced to two years confinement in a state jail facility.  After appellate counsel filed an 
Anders
(footnote: 1) brief and a motion to withdraw indicating there is no meritorious error to present on appeal, appellant filed a 
pro se
 motion to dismiss his appeal.  

By his 
pro se
 motion, appellant represents that he agrees with his counsel that this appeal is frivolous and requests that it be dismissed.  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.  
See
 Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  Counsel’s motion to withdraw is also granted.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Don H. Reavis

    Justice

Do not publish.

FOOTNOTES
1:Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).