Court Opinion

ID: 2952932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-16 22:14:21.658656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:11.815602
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00498-CR

Charles White, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-DC-09-201777, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

		Appellant Charles White'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).  White received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to
examine the appellate record and to file a pro se response.    	
		We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and White's pro se response and we
agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might
arguably support the appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
		The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

						_____________________________________________
						Diane M. Henson, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson
Affirmed
Filed:   February 3, 2010
Do Not Publish