TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00257-CR

Charles Myles, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 1010906, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Charles Myles pleaded guilty to possessing less than one gram of cocaine in a drug-free zone. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. '' 481.115(a), (b), .134(d) (West Supp. 2003). He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to ten years= imprisonment, but imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on community supervision. He now appeals from an order revoking supervision and imposing sentence.

Appellant=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 appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

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.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear Affirmed Filed: March 20, 2003 Do Not Publish