Opinion issued January 9, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-02-00415-CR

____________

CORY JAMES COX, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 868456

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Cory James Cox, pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft without a plea bargain agreement. The court sentenced appellant to five years' confinement, then granted appellant shock probation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 6 (Vernon Supp. 2003). The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision to which appellant pleaded true. The trial court assessed punishment at three years' confinement. We affirm.

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).

Counsel certifies that a copy of the brief 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). More than 30 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.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. ⁽¹⁾ See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Nuchia and Jennings.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

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).