Appellant pleaded guilty to habitual theft. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). The district court assessed punishment at incarceration in a state jail for two years, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on community supervision. At a subsequent hearing on the State's motion to revoke supervision, appellant pleaded true to the alleged violation. The court revoked supervision and imposed the sentence previously assessed.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding 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); 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 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 community supervision is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed: October 16, 1997

Do Not Publish