In January 1995, appellant Anthony Dean Fuller was placed on deferred adjudication supervision for ten years after he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault. In December 2003, after a hearing on the State's motion, the district court adjudicated Fuller guilty and imposed a fourteen-year sentence.

Fuller'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).

Fuller has also filed a pro se brief. In nine points of error, he contends the evidence introduced at the adjudication hearing was the product of and tainted by an improper modification of the conditions of supervision. Because these points challenge the court's decision to proceed to adjudication, they are not properly before us. See Garcia v. State, 45 S.W.3d 740, 742 (Tex. App.--Austin 2001, pet. ref'd); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 2004) (no appeal from decision to adjudicate).

We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and the pro se brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: May 20, 2004

Do Not Publish