Case ID: sw2d_471/html/0814-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORRISON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carl Wayne BARBER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 44137.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 20, 1971.
    Charles F. Baldwin, Fort Worth (Court Appointed on Appeal), for appellant.
    Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
   OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, fixed by the jury upon a plea of guilty, twenty-five (25) years.

Appellant’s court appointed counsel at trial and on appeal has filed a brief in this Court in which he states that after diligent study of the record he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he submits four grounds that he considers arguable. See Degay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 205, 206-207 (1970); Houston v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 446 S.W.2d 309 (1969) (concurring opinion); Gainous v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 137 (1969). Cf. Bates v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 107 (1970). We have examined the same and find no merit.

Said attorney has prepared and mailed to appellant a copy of his brief, and appellant has filed his pro se brief, which we have examined and also find to be without merit. A discussion of the contentions therein raised would add nothing to the jurisprudence of this State.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.