Court Opinion

ID: 2864591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 00:42:22.689854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:00.646085
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00138-CR

William Ray Nobles, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. B-96-0565-S, HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant William Ray Nobles was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision after he pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault of a child.  See Tex. Pen. Code
Ann. § 22.011 (West Supp. 2002).  Later, after a hearing on the State's motion, the district court
revoked supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty, and imposed a sentence of six years'
imprisonment.

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.  Counsel's
motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

  
				Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel
Affirmed
Filed:   November 21, 2002
Do Not Publish