Court Opinion

ID: 2867273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 01:47:22.245716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:41.480001
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                        NO. 03-02-00257-CR

                                      Charles Myles, Appellant

                                                    v.

                                    The State of Texas, Appellee

        FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
               NO. 1010906, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Charles Myles pleaded guilty to possessing less than one gram of cocaine in a

drug-free zone. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. '' 481.115(a), (b), .134(d) (West Supp. 2003). He

was adjudged guilty and sentenced to ten years= imprisonment, but imposition of sentence was suspended

and he was placed on community supervision. He now appeals from an order revoking supervision and

imposing sentence.

               Appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced. 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); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d
553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of

counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate

record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

                 We have reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

                 The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

                                                 W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: March 20, 2003

Do Not Publish

                                                     2