Opinion issued June 26, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-02-00407-CR

____________

ANDRE ALI JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 835752

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Andre Ali Jones, pleaded guilty to possession of less than one gram of cocaine, and the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt for two years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, to which appellant pleaded true to three of its four allegations and not true to the other. The trial court found appellant guilty of possession of cocaine and sentenced him to confinement in state jail for one year.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd).

The brief states that a copy was delivered to appellant, whom counsel advised by letter of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant received a copy of the appellate record on January 15, 2003. Since that date, we have granted two motions for extension of time to file the pro se brief. Appellant's brief was most recently due on May 20, 2003. Thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

We affirm the judgment. ⁽¹⁾

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Nuchia, and Keyes.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1.Counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and also to inform appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).