Jeffery Eugene Ephraim v. State ( 2006 )

COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JEFFERY EUGENE EPHRAIM,                          )

                                                                              )     No.  08-06-00078-CR

Appellant,                          )

                                                                              )                      Appeal from the

v.                                                                           )

                                                                              )     143rd District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                     )

                                                                              )     of Reeves County, Texas

Appellee.                           )

                                                                              )     (TC# 05-07-07009-CRR)

                                                                              )

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant Jeffery Eugene Ephraim entered a plea of guilty before the court to the third-degree felony offense of assault.  See Tex.Penal Code Ann. ' 22.01 (Vernon Supp. 2006).  The trial court assessed punishment at 4 years= imprisonment, probated to 3 years and a $1,000 fine.  In February 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant=s community supervision based on a number of violations of the terms and conditions of the judgment of conviction including, among others, that Appellant:  (1) tested positive for cocaine and marijuana use; (2) failed to pay court-ordered fees; (3) failed to pay community supervision fees; and (4) failed to perform community service as required.  At the hearing on the motion to revoke, Appellant pled true to the allegations in the State=s motion and the trial court revoked his community supervision.  Punishment was assessed at 4 years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $1,000 fine.  We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Appellant=s court‑appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See 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).  Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw, has served a copy of the brief to Appellant, and has informed Appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record including counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court=s judgment.

September 7, 2006

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

Barajas, C.J. (Not Participating)

(Do Not Publish)