Albert Peralta v. State

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN





NO. 3-91-108-CR



ALBERT PERALTA,

APPELLANT

vs.





THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. 349,981, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE

PER CURIAM

The trial court found appellant guilty of criminal trespass and assessed punishment at incarceration for sixty days. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.05 (1989 & Supp. 1991).

Appellant's original court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief met 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 availed himself of that right. Thereafter, appellant secured the services of the criminal defense clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, and this Court granted substitute counsel leave to file a new brief. Substitute counsel also filed a frivololous appeal brief meeting the requirements of the cases cited above.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We have examined appellant's pro se brief and find it presents no error for review. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

[Before Justices Powers, Jones and B. A. Smith]

Affirmed

Filed: October 23, 1991

[Do Not Publish]