IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-98-114-CR

     WILLIAM T. CAGNON, III,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                              Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court # 30,914

O P I N I O N

      William T. Cagnon, III, pled “no contest” to the felony offense of forgery on June 23, 1997. Punishment was assessed at confinement in a state jail facility for two years, probated for two years. On March 6, 1998, Cagnon pled “true” to six violations of the terms of his community supervision. The court found that Cagnon had violated the terms of his community supervision and extended his term of probation by two years. The court further ordered Cagnon to enter a substance abuse felony punishment facility. Upon release from that facility, the court ordered him to enter a community corrections facility until all court-ordered financial obligations are paid or for a term of twenty-four months, whichever is less.

      Counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, order) (order discussing procedures for Anders appeal, revisiting Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d)). Counsel states that she has diligently reviewed the record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error. We have independently reviewed the record, and we are satisfied that counsel has thoroughly searched the record for any arguable appellate claim. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1904, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have determined that counsel correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Id.

      Counsel advised Cagnon that he had the right to review the record and to file a pro-se response on his own behalf. Cagnon has filed a “Petition for Revocation of Probated Sentence” in which he lists the various conditions of probation which he violated. He asks that his probation be revoked.

      Because we have no viable points of error to consider, the judgment is affirmed. We simultaneously grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Id.

                                                                               BILL VANCE

                                                                               Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 30, 1998

Do Not Publish