TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00228-CR

Mario Salomon, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 21099, HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In March 2005, appellant Mario Salomon was placed on deferred adjudication supervision after he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2006). One year later, after appellant pleaded true to the violations alleged in the State’s motion to adjudicate, the court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.

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 the appellate record and filed a pro se brief.

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. 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.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson Affirmed Filed: January 22, 2007 Do Not Publish