DocketNumber： 03-98-00479-CR
Filed Date： 1/14/1999
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/5/2015
386 U.S. 738
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-98-00479-CR
Franklin Delano Croft, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 47,783, HONORABLE C. W. DUNCAN, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING PER CURIAM
Appellant pleaded guilty to robbery. After finding that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt, the district court deferred further proceedings and placed appellant on community supervision. Later, after finding that he violated the conditions of his supervision, the court adjudged appellant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for four years and a $1000 fine.
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,
(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, 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 appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and Powers*
Affirmed
Filed: January 14, 1999
Do Not Publish
* Before John Powers, Senior Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1998).