Court Opinion

ID: 2857710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 18:34:58.745992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:22.637134
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

 

NO. 3-91-267-CR

TOMMY CHAVEZ,

	APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

	APPELLEE

 

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL

DISTRICT

NO. 90-714-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE
 

PER CURIAM
	A jury found appellant guilty of indecency with a child.  Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
21.11 (1989).  The district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years.
	Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes 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);
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.  Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeal.
	The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

[Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd]
Affirmed
Filed:  August 26, 1992
[Do Not Publish]