Robert Beard v. State of Texas

Robert Beard v. State

  IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-01-040-CR

     ROBERT BEARD,

                                                                         Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                         Appellee

From the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court # 807,352

O P I N I O N

      Robert Beard was charged with driving while intoxicated, a felony offense. Beard pled guilty, and the trial court placed him on community supervision for four years. Over a year later, the State filed a motion to revoke Beard’s community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Beard’s community supervision and sentenced him to three years in prison. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Anders Brief

      Beard’s counsel on appeal filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel certified she provided Beard with a copy of the brief and advised Beard that he had the right to file his own brief and that a record would be made available to him. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.). Beard did not file a pro-se brief. The State waived the opportunity, if any, to file a reply brief.

      We now decide whether the case has no arguable grounds as claimed by counsel. See Taulung v. State, 979 S.W.2d 854, 855 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, no pet.). Counsel, in her brief, reviewed all matters filed and contained in the record. Counsel's brief also contained references to both the record and applicable statutes, rules, and cases, and discussed why counsel concluded that there were no arguable grounds for the appeals. See Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 691.

      We have independently reviewed the record and agree that there are no issues “which might arguably support an appeal” in this cause. Id.

      Because we are affirming Beard’s judgment and sentence, counsel must advise Beard of the result of this appeal and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. Id., at 694; see also Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Conclusion

      We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                         TOM GRAY

                                                                         Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 9, 2002

Do not publish

[CR25]