TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00013-CR

Quintin Joseph Carruthers, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 56888, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After he pleaded guilty, appellant Quintin Joseph Carruthers was convicted by the trial court of burglary of a habitation and placed on community supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). The State later moved to revoke supervision, and appellant pleaded true to the allegations. The court revoked supervision and imposed sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.

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 order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson Affirmed Filed: November 29, 2007 Do Not Publish