Bernave Sosa v. State ( 2005 )

Opinion issued February 24, 2005

In The

Court of Appeals

For The  

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-04-00073-CR

____________

BERNAVE SOSA, Appellant  

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 904013

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

               Appellant, Bernave Sosa, pleaded guilty to the offense of felony theft, and in accordance with the plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in state jail, suspended, and placement on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to failure to perform community service and not true to the remaining allegations. The trial court found the allegations in the State’s motion to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced him to confinement in state jail for two years. We affirm.

               Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in this case concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d).

               The brief states that a copy was delivered to appellant, whom counsel advised by letter of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no reversible error in the record regarding the revocation of community supervision, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

               We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                     PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Higley and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).