Walls, Barker William v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 16, 2002
• Docket: 14-01-01181-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed May 16, 2002

Affirmed and Opinion filed May 16, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-01-01181-CR

BARKER WILLIAM WALLS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 872,186

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance.  On March 22, 2001, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and imposed a fine of $300.  The sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on community supervision for five years.  On August 13, 2001, the State moved to revoke community supervision, and on October 29, 2001, the trial court revoked community supervision and sentenced appellant to two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes 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 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  As of this date, no pro se response 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 no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed May 16,2002.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Guzman.

Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).