Court Opinion

ID: 2858248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 18:58:39.009504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:01.647828
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

 

NO. 3-93-298-CR

ANTONIO KIM GONZALEZ,

	APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

	APPELLEE

 

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

NO. 42,469, HONORABLE JACK W. PRESCOTT, JUDGE PRESIDING
 

PER CURIAM
	After accepting his plea of no contest and hearing his judicial confession, the
district court found appellant guilty of burglary of a vehicle.  Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.04
(West 1989).  Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the 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:   September 15, 1993
[Do Not Publish]