Court Opinion

ID: 2863303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 23:18:39.988002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:12.301531
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-99-00735-CR

Eric Simpson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 48,465, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Eric Simpson pleaded guilty in June 1998 to delivering cocaine.  See
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (West Supp. 2000).  The district court deferred
adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision.  In September 1999, the court
revoked supervision on the State's motion, adjudged appellant guilty, and assessed punishment
at incarceration in a state jail for two years.

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, 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); 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.   

				                                                                       

				Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Affirmed

Filed:   January 6, 2000

Do Not Publish