Opinion

Robin K. Otwell has appealed from the revocation of his community supervision. In 1997, Otwell was placed on community supervision for two separate offenses of felony driving while intoxicated. In 2001, he was arrested in Arkansas for driving while intoxicated, and the State filed a motion to revoke his community supervision. Otwell pled true to the State's allegations. The trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment, to run concurrently for the two offenses. Otwell was represented by appointed counsel at trial and by different appointed counsel on appeal.

Counsel filed a brief May 10, 2002, under the mandate of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Ex parte Senna, 606 S.W.2d 329, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), and has accordingly also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent Otwell a copy of the brief and advised Otwell by letter he believes there are no arguable contentions of error, and informed Otwell of his right to review the record and file a brief pro se.

Pursuant to a request by counsel, we granted Otwell until June 12, 2002, to file his appellate brief. No brief has been filed, and Otwell has not sought additional time in which to prepare a brief.

Counsel has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, as required by High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). See also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). He also reviewed the representation by appointed counsel at trial as reflected by the record and has concluded the record does not suggest counsel was ineffective. Counsel concluded from his review of the record there is no arguable point of error to support the appeal.

We have likewise reviewed the record and agree with counsel there are no arguable points of error in this case.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Donald R. Ross

Justice

Date Submitted: August 21, 2002

Date Decided: August 30, 2002

Do Not Publish

ch we informed him that, if he wished to prosecute the appeal, he must file a brief to arrive in this Court no later than April 5, 2004, with a cover letter reasonably explaining his failure to file a brief as required by the rules. We further informed Teixeira that, if he failed to do so, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), we may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. As of the date of this opinion, Teixeira has not filed his brief, nor has he otherwise contacted this Court in connection with this appeal.

          The time allowed for filing the appellate brief has elapsed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

                                                                           Donald R. Ross

                                                                           Justice

Date Submitted:      April 21, 2004

Date Decided:         April 22, 2004