ANTHONY BRADLEY,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Anthony Bradley ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's order revoking his community supervision, following which Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

Background Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a habitation ⁽¹⁾ and, pursuant to a plea bargain, pleaded guilty as charged. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and sentenced Appellant to community supervision for ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's community supervision alleging that Appellant had violated certain conditions thereof. On May 14, 2002, a hearing was conducted on the State's motion. Appellant pleaded "not true" to the State's allegations, but the parties stipulated that Appellant had violated one of the conditions of his community supervision as alleged. ⁽²⁾ Following the hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the State's motion to be true, adjudicated Appellant guilty, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for fifteen years.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. ⁽³⁾ We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and having found no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered May 30, 2003.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Griffith, J.