NO. 07-09-00371-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL 19, 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOSE ANGEL CORDOVA, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NO. B14880-0303; HONORABLE EDWARD LEE SELF, JUDGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jose Angel Cordova, pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, of less than one gram as part of a plea bargain. In return for pleading guilty, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of two years. The State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication on August 25, 2006, and at a subsequent hearing on December 28, 2006, appellant was adjudicated guilty of the offense and sentenced to three years community supervision. On August 26, 2009, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. After a hearing on the State's motion on October 22, 2009, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision and sentenced appellant to two years confinement in a State Jail Facility. It is from this judgment that appellant appeals. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellants 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 courts 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 not filed a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raised a ground that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed this ground 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, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish.