Richard Clark v. State

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN









NO. 3-93-396-CR





RICHARD CLARK,

APPELLANT

vs.





THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 42,069, HONORABLE C. W. DUNCAN, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West Supp. 1994). The jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which she concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing contentions 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 carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would serve no beneficial purpose.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Jones

Affirmed

Filed: February 9, 1994

Do Not Publish