No. 12-09-00153-CR
Opinion delivered March 30, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appealed from the 2nd Judicial District Court of Cherokee County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.
PER CURIAM.
Brandon Dewayne Tyler appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five 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 robbery and pleaded "guilty." The trial court deferred adjudicating Appellant "guilty" and sentenced Appellant to community supervision for ten years. On February 24, 2009, the State filed a motion to proceed to final adjudication alleging that Appellant had violated certain terms and conditions of his community supervision. Specifically, the State alleged that Appellant had, among other violations, (1) been convicted of felonies and misdemeanors in Oklahoma and (2) failed to complete his community service. Thereafter, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State's motion. After the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had violated certain of the terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State's motion. Following a trial on punishment, the trial court revoked Appellant's community supervision, adjudicated Appellant "guilty" of aggravated robbery, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for twenty-five 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 . Appellant's counsel states that he 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. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders , Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 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 .