Nos. 12-03-00157-CR, 12-03-00158-CR, 12-03-00159-CR, 12-03-00160-CR, 12-03-00161-CR
Opinion delivered November 26, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court of Anderson County,Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and DEVASTO, J.
PER CURIAM
Gwinn Andrew Dixon ("Appellant") appeals each of his convictions for delivery of a controlled substance. In three of the cases (12-02-00157-00159-CR), Appellant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment in each case. In the other two cases, Appellant was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment in each case (12-02-00160 and 00161-CR). Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Andersv. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted on five counts of delivery of a controlled substance. On November 30, 2000, Appellant pleaded guilty to each count and was placed on deferred adjudication probation for five years in each of three of the cases (12-02-00157-00159-CR) and ten years in each of the other two cases (12-02-00160 and 00161-CR). On or about March 30, 2002, the State moved to revoke Appellant's deferred adjudication probation and proceed with adjudication of guilt and sentencing because Appellant failed to comply with the terms of his probation. On April 4, 2003, Appellant pleaded "not true" to the allegations contained in the State's motion and the trial court held a hearing in order hear evidence on the motion. After both the State and Appellant presented evidence in support of their positions, the trial court found that Appellant had not complied with the conditions of his probation and adjudged him guilty in each of the cases. The trial court then sentenced Appellant to five years of imprisonment in each of three of the cases (12-02-00157-00159-CR) and twenty years of imprisonment in each of the other two cases (12-02-00160 and 00161-CR). Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on April 21, 2003. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TOANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim. App. 1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.