In number 3-97-122-CR, appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of burglary of a building. The district court found that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt, suspended further proceedings, and placed appellant on community supervision. Later, on the State's motion, the court revoked supervision, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced appellant, as an habitual offender, to imprisonment for thirty years. In number 3-97-123-CR, the court found appellant guilty of forgery by passing and assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for fifteen years.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are 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); Carrie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gaines 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. ⁽¹⁾

Appellant contends he was tricked into pleading guilty in number 3-97-122-CR. There is no support for this contention in the record.

In number 3-97-123-CR, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the guilty verdict, his trial counsel was ineffective, and there is no support in the record for the amount of restitution ordered. We have reviewed the testimony and find evidentiary support for each element of the offense. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Appellant's ineffectiveness claim is based on facts outside the record. The district court stated that the amount of restitution was "set forth in the PSI."

We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed: February 12, 1998

Do Not Publish

1. In his pro se brief, appellant states that he requested but was denied a copy of the reporter's record. The district clerk informed the Clerk of this Court that the reporter's record was mailed to appellant on October 14, 1997.