TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00235-CR

Mark Lagrada Canete, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. A-99-0652-S, HONORABLE CURT F. STEIB, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Mark Lagrada Canete was placed on community supervision after being convicted of burglary of a habitation on a plea of guilty. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 30.02 (West Supp. 2002). His supervision was revoked after he admitted several of the violations alleged in the motion to revoke.

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. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel=s motion to withdraw is granted.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

Mack Kidd, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear Affirmed Filed: August 30, 2002 Do Not Publish