Anthony Deshaun Evans v. State

11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Opinion Anthony Deshaun Evans Appellant Vs No. 11-03-00054-CR B Appeal from Dallas County State of Texas Appellee This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. Anthony Deshaun Evans originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of appellant=s guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for 5 years, and assessed a $500 fine. At the hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to five of the State=s allegations and pleas of not true to two allegations. The trial court found six of the allegations that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision to be true, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for 6 years and a $500 fine. We affirm. In her brief, court-appointed counsel states that she has diligently reviewed the entire record and applicable law and that she has concluded that there are no arguable points upon which an appeal may be predicated. Counsel further states that she believes this court=s jurisdiction over this appeal is limited by TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003), and Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). We agree. Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. No appeal may be taken from the trial court=s determination to adjudicate guilt. Article 42.12, section 5(b); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), cert. den=d, 479 U.S. 885 (1986). The record fails to support any possible grounds for reversal. We agree that the appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM November 6, 2003 Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCall, J.