MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00613-CR Diane Marie HOLDEN, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2003CR6256 Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 14, 2011 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Appellant Diane Marie Holden pleaded no contest to the offense of theft of service between the amounts of $1,500 to $20,000. On February 23, 2004, the trial court placed Holden on community supervision for a period of two years. Holden’s probation was subsequently extended five times due to multiple alleged violations of her probation. The State then filed a motion to revoke Holden’s community supervision, alleging she had violated several terms of her probation. Holden pleaded true to the alleged violations, the trial court found them to be 04-10-00613-CR

true, revoked Holden’s probation, and sentenced her to 200 days confinement, which was to run concurrently with a recent felony offense. Holden filed a notice of appeal, challenging the trial court’s revocation.

Holden’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable point of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided proof Holden was given a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief. Holden has not filed a brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Holden’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Holden wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either the day our judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id.

-2- 04-10-00613-CR

R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Marialyn Barnard, Justice Do Not Publish

-3-