Hardin v. State

Full title: KEVIN DEE HARDIN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, El Paso

Date published: Jun 30, 2003

Nos. 08-03-00066-CR and 08-03-00072-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 30, 2003)

Opinion

Nos. 08-03-00066-CR and 08-03-00072-CR

June 30, 2003 (Do Not Publish)

Appeal from the 142nd District Court of Midland County, Texas (TC# CR27305).

Before Panel No. 3, BARAJAS, C.J., LARSEN, and CHEW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation proceeding. Appellant was originally placed on probation for the offense of theft. The court revoked Appellant's probation and assessed punishment at two (2) years' confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $500. We affirm. 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 advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. 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). A copy of counsel's brief and the appellate record have been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and 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. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment is affirmed.

ORDER

On this the [xxx] day of May, 2003, came on to be heard the Hon. David G. Rogers' motion to withdraw. Having determined that counsel has met 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) and Tex.R.App.P. 6.5, the motion to withdraw is granted on the following terms and conditions:

Counsel is directed to (1) forward to Appellant this order and the court's opinion and judgment issued this same day in this cause; (2) notify Appellant of the availability of discretionary review; and (3) notify Appellant of the appellate deadlines applicable to discretionary review.