Appellant Hai Ho appeals from orders revoking community supervision and imposing concurrent ten-year prison sentences for two counts of aggravated assault. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (West 2003. Ho was originally convicted on his pleas of guilty to the offenses.

Ho'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 Ho, was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed, but a letter from Ho explaining why he believes the punishment is too harsh has been read and considered by the Court.

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 orders revoking community supervision are affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: August 14, 2003

Do Not Publish