Court Opinion

ID: 2860250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 20:29:42.592256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:21.933443
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-94-00642-CR

Freddy Richard Rodriguez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, 203RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. F-9433413-LP, HONORABLE CLYDE E. WHITESIDE, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

	A jury found appellant guilty of felony theft.  The district court assessed
punishment at imprisonment for six 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 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 Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Kidd

Affirmed

Filed:   May 1, 1996

Do Not Publish