11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Franklin D. Mills, Jr.

Appellant

Vs.       Nos. 11-01-00064-CR & 11-01-00065-CR B Appeals from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

In Cause No. 11-01-00064-CR, the trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of the offense of burglary of a building.  Appellant entered pleas of true to both enhancement paragraphs.  A plea bargain agreement was not reached, and the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 20 years.  In Cause No. 11-01-00065-CR, the trial court found that appellant had violated his deferred adjudication community supervision, revoked the supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty of the offense of burglary of habitation, and assessed punishment at confinement for 25 years.  We affirm.

In each appeal, appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she states that she has diligently reviewed the entire record and the applicable law and that she has concluded that each appeal is without merit.  In Cause No. 11-01-00065-CR, counsel requests that the February 5, 1999, trial court order deferring the adjudication of guilt be modified to reflect that Darrell Clements was the magistrate, that Heath Hyde represented the State, and that no plea bargain agreement was reached.  The record supports counsel=s request.  The February 5, 1999, trial court order is so modified.

Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief.  A pro se brief has not been filed.  Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record.  We agree that the appeals are without merit. 

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

July 18, 2002

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.