Affirmed and Opinion filed January 9, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00648-CR

____________

KESH DAUN LACY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 878,659

_______________________________________________________________

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            On October 23, 2001, appellant was convicted of the offense of theft.  The trial court sentenced appellant to two years’ confinement in a state jail facility; however, the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for four years.  On May 15, 2002, the State filed a motion to revoke alleging appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision.  After a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced appellant to confinement in a state jail facility for two years.  Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

            Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

            A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

            We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

            Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed January 9, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Frost.

Do Not Publish – Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).