NO. 12-09-00135-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KENNETH DEXTER FOLMAR,                §                      APPEAL FROM THE SECOND

APPELLANT

V.                                                                    §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE                                                   §                      CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

      Kenneth Dexter Folmar appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault, following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for fifty 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 dismiss the appeal.

Background

            Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault and pleaded guilty.  The indictment alleged that Appellant penetrated the sexual organ of a child with his sexual organ.[1]  The trial court deferred adjudicating Appellant guilty and ordered that Appellant be placed on community supervision for eight years.  The State filed a motion to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated certain conditions of his community supervision.  The trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion.  After the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion.  The trial court subsequently revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for fifty years.  This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State.  This brief demonstrates that counsel 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.  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 demonstrates that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.[2]  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.  See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed.[3]

            By per curiam opinion May 19, 2010.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)