OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Tina Lynn Scott appeals from the judgment in a criminal case revoking her probation and sentencing her to five months’ imprisonment. Scott’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal. Scott was informed of her right to file a pro se brief, but has not . done so. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Scott’s conviction and sentence.
As a matter of due process, prior to revocation of probation, Scott properly received: (1) written notice of the alleged violations of probation; (2) disclosure of the evidence against her; (3) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront witnesses; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking probation. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). We find that Scott was sentenced within the proper sentencing range. In addition, we find the court did not abuse its discretion by not sentencing her to home detention.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Scott’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.