TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00672-CR

Thomas Howard Hollowell, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 5489, HONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES, III, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In August 2004, appellant Thomas Howard Hollowell pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.11 (West 2003). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the district court deferred adjudication and placed Hollowell on community supervision for ten years. In September 2005, the court revoked supervision on the State’s motion, adjudged Hollowell guilty, and imposed a twenty-year sentence. This appeal followed.

Hollowell’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that this 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). Hollowell responded by filing a pro se “application for writ of error” asserting a number of “just cause grounds for consideration.”

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Hollowell’s pro se filing. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________ Bea Ann Smith, Justice Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Waldrop Affirmed Filed: June 2, 2006 Do Not Publish