Patrick Lamont Hood A/K/A Pack Rat v. State ( 2004 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-04-00391-CR
Patrick Lamont Hood a/k/a Pack Rat, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 52540, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Patrick Lamont Hood pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen.
Code Ann. § 29.03 (West Supp. 2004-05). The trial court found that the evidence substantiated his
guilt, deferred further proceedings, and placed him on community supervision. At a later hearing
on the State’s motion to adjudicate, appellant confessed that he violated the conditions of his
supervision. The court adjudged him guilty and imposed an eight-year sentence.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his
right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
__________________________________________
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed: December 16, 2004
Do Not Publish
2