Martin Lynn Williams v. State ( 1994 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN









NO. 3-94-077-CR





MARTIN LYNN WILLIAMS,

APPELLANT

vs.





THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 91-700-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

In March 1992, appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. Penal Code, 63d Leg., R.S., ch. 399, sec. 1, § 30.02, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 883, 926 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02, since amended). Pursuant to a plea bargain, the district court found that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt but deferred adjudication and placed appellant on probation. In December 1993, the district court revoked appellant's probation on the State's motion, adjudicated him guilty, and imposed sentence of imprisonment for fifty years.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes 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); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Appellant was granted two extensions of time to file a pro se brief, but none has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed: September 21, 1994

Do Not Publish