NO. 12-06-00063-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KEISTON RENOR WARD, §          APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V.        §          JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §          SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Keiston Renor Ward appeals the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision, following which he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten 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 indicted for aggravated assault and pleaded “guilty.”  The trial court deferred adjudicating Appellant “guilty” and sentenced Appellant to community supervision for five years.        Thereafter, the State filed a motion seeking to revoke Appellant’s community supervision alleging that he had violated certain conditions thereof.  Specifically, the State alleged, among other reasons, that Appellant (1) failed to perform community services restitution as ordered, (2) failed to submit to drug counseling as ordered, (3) failed to complete an anger management program as ordered, and (4) failed to keep up with his financial obligations as ordered.  On December 5, 2005, the trial court conducted a hearing on the matter.  Appellant pleaded “true” to the aforementioned allegations in the State’s motion.  Ultimately, the trial court found the violations alleged in the State’s motion to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant “guilty” of aggravated assault, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ten years. 

            Appellant subsequently filed a motion for new trial alleging that the trial court’s failure to make a deadly weapon finding until Appellant’s probation was revoked amounted to waiver.  The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for new trial.  This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            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). Appellant’s counsel states 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.¹  We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

            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 this matter.  Having done so and finding 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 August 31, 2006.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)