NO. 07-10-00336-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEBRUARY 25, 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LYDIA MENDOZA, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM THE 110TH DISTRICT COURT OF FLOYD COUNTY; NO. 4284; HONORABLE WILLIAM P. SMITH, JUDGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Lydia Mendoza, pleaded guilty to forgery and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of four years. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to adjudicate contending that appellant had violated several of the terms and conditions of community supervision. At the hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate, appellant entered a plea of true to each of the allegations contained in the State's motion to adjudicate. Because there was no plea agreement, the trial court heard evidence regarding punishment. Subsequently, the trial court entered an adjudication order and sentenced appellant to 18 months in a State Jail Facility. Appellant gave notice of appeal and this appeal followed. We affirm.

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 reviewed grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. 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, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish.