Court Opinion

ID: 2868213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 02:22:49.546283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:10.963870
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00623-CR

Teddy Underwood, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. 71302, HONORABLE LINDA A. RODRIGUEZ, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

At a bench trial, appellant Teddy Underwood was convicted of assault with family
violence and sentenced to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.  His 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 he 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.

				__________________________________________
				Mack Kidd, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton
Affirmed
Filed:   June 24, 2004
Do Not Publish