Opinion
Nos. 03-07-00665-CR, 03-07-00666-CR
Filed: June 19, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the District Court of Bell County, 264th Judicial District, Nos. 47447 58977, Honorable Martha J. Trudo, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice LAW, Justices PEMBERTON and WALDROP.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Both of these causes are appeals from orders revoking community supervision. In cause number 47447, appellant Marvin Lynn Karl pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated. On July 22, 1997, the trial court adjudged him guilty and assessed a five-year prison term, but the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. In cause number 58977, appellant also pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated. On May 11, 2006, the trial court adjudged appellant guilty, assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. On that same day, the court ordered that appellant's probation be continued in cause number 47447. In June 2007, the State filed motions to revoke in both causes. On October 26, 2007, after hearing evidence, the court revoked appellant's community supervision in both causes and imposed sentences of five years (cause number 47447) and ten years (cause number 58977) in prison. Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed briefs concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet 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). Appellant received copies of counsel's briefs and was advised of his right to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the records and counsel's briefs and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals. Counsel's motions to withdraw are granted. The orders revoking community supervision are affirmed.