Court Opinion

ID: 2859504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 19:54:09.922661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:39.634467
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-95-00148-CR

Donnell Orlandis Morrison, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

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

NO. 44,124, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

	The district court found appellant guilty of burglary of a vehicle and assessed
punishment at imprisonment for ten years.  Penal Code, 63d Leg., R.S., ch. 399, sec. 1, § 30.04,
1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 883, 927 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.04, since amended).
	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 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, Kidd and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed:   June 7, 1995
Do Not Publish