Robert Ray Hampton v. State ( 1995 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



NO. 03-94-00648-CR and NO. 03-94-00649-CR



Robert Ray Hampton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, 282ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. F-9441992-NS & F-9441941-MS, HONORABLE TOM PRICE, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

In both causes, the district court found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment at imprisonment for twenty-five years and a $1000 fine. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 1994). ⁽¹⁾

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing a contention which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. 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. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. A discussion of the contention advanced in counsel's brief would serve no beneficial purpose.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones

Affirmed

Filed: June 21, 1995

Do Not Publish

1. Section 29.03 was amended in a nonsubstantive way after these offenses were committed.