APPELLANT

APPELLEE

PER CURIAM

In April 1993, appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. The district court imposed punishment at imprisonment for ten years, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation. In March 1994, following a hearing on the State's motion, the district court revoked appellant's probation, reduced punishment to imprisonment for six years, and imposed sentence. ⁽¹⁾ This appeal followed.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets 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); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The order revoking probation is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed: November 9, 1994

Do Not Publish

1. The order revoking appellant's probation is styled "judgment revoking community supervision."