TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00796-CR

Silvia Trevino Martinez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 53948, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Silvia Trevino Martinez was placed on deferred adjudication supervision after she pleaded guilty to possessing less than one gram of cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West 2003). She was adjudicated guilty after she admitted violating the conditions of supervision as alleged by the State. The court sentenced her to twenty months in state jail.

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). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and 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. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Pemberton Affirmed Filed: September 15, 2005 Do Not Publish