NO. 07-05-0441-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JULY 15, 2005 ______________________________ ALEX REYES PEREZ, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2004-403895; HON. CECIL PURYEAR, PRESIDING _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL Pending before the court is the motion of attorney David Martinez to withdraw as counsel for appellant Alex Reyes Perez. Without passing on the merits of the case, Martinez's motion is granted. Also pending before the court is a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel for appellant by attorney Michael C. Shulman, who represents that the appeal is subject to dismissal pursuant to a plea bargain. Shulman's motion is also granted. It is, therefore, ordered that the appeals be dismissed. Having dismissed the appeals at the personal request of both counsel, we will not entertain any motion for rehearing. Per Curiam Do not publish. 1. And as it turns out, not for the first time. In 1997, Perez pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and the court placed him on probation. In 1998, the State moved to revoke probation. In a hearing to revoke Perez's probation, Perez testified that he had pled guilty to the offense but claimed that he was not the person who was convicted of that offense. The trial court granted the State's motion and revoked Perez's probation. NO. 07-05-0427-CR _________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D APRIL 18, 2005 ______________________________ BRYAN K. HOLLINGSWORTH, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY; NO. A3577-0402; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUDGE _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Bryan K. Hollingsworth pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find him guilty, but deferred finding him guilty and placing him on community supervision for five years. The State filed a motion to revoke, alleging he violated the terms of his community supervision by driving while intoxicated and failing to avoid injurious and vicious habits. The court held a hearing on the motion, granted it, revoked appellant's community supervision, and sentenced him to three years confinement. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders (1) brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel's motion and affirm. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief. By his Anders brief, counsel raises two arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court's finding appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision is supported by legally sufficient evidence, and (2) whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. However, counsel does not cite authority in support of either argument. (2) As counsel concedes, the record supports the trial court's finding that appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. However, when a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, in reliance on a plea bargain agreement, and the trial court subsequently overrules the State's motion to revoke the probation, the defendant's conviction must be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266, 273 (2009). To preserve the issue for appeal, the complaint on appeal must correspond with the objection made at trial. See Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Cr.App. 2002). We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex.Cr.App. 2008). We have found no such issues. After reviewing the record, counsel's brief and appellant's pro se response, we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish. 1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2. We note the motion does not support the contention that any error was preserved for our review. Although there was a plea hearing, the trial court did not announce its determination to proceed to a hearing on the merits until after appellant entered his plea of guilty. And, prior to the revocation hearing, appellant did not file any documents or otherwise seek any additional findings from the trial court and failed to object to the reporter's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. 3. 1) Whether the trial court's finding appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision is supported by legally sufficient evidence. 2) Whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel.