Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant was convicted after a jury trial of the offense of injury to a child and was sentenced, by the same jury, to a term of confinement for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.

Appellant's attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has filed a response.

By his response to counsel's Anders brief, appellant raises grounds that he alleges could possibly support an appeal. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

Do not publish.

rd. See Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994); Reyes, 849 S.W.2d 816. The purpose of such a hearing is for a defendant to fully develop the issues raised in his motion for new trial. See Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665. When an accused presents a motion for new trial raising matters not determinable from the record, upon which the accused could be entitled to relief, the trial court abuses its discretion in failing to hold a hearing. See Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816.

A defendant placed on deferred adjudication must appeal issues relating to the original deferred adjudication proceeding when deferred adjudication is first imposed, and cannot appeal such matters after revocation of probation and adjudication. See Daniels v. State, 30 S.W.3d 407, 408 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). The appellant in Daniels sought reversal of his conviction because the reporter's record of his original plea hearing had been lost. The appellant urged that the lost record prevented him from challenging the voluntariness of his plea and rulings on pretrial motions. See Daniels, 30 S.W.3d at 408. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the reporter's record was not necessary to the appeal because Daniels could not, after revocation of his probation and adjudication, appeal "any issues relating to the original deferred adjudication proceeding." Id.

All of the matters referenced in appellant's motion for new trial related to the proceedings leading to his original deferred adjudication plea hearing. Appellant could have appealed such issues only when deferred adjudication was first imposed. Id. The issues raised in appellant's motion for new trial could not be considered on direct appeal following revocation of probation and adjudication. The issues in appellant's motion would not have entitled him to relief, even if found to be true. Id.

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Phil Johnson

Justice

Do not publish.