Court Opinion

ID: 2866586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 01:40:02.805849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:49.564592
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-03-00024-CR

                                        Hai Ho, Appellant

                                                 v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

     FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
           NO. 3011256, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Hai Ho appeals from orders revoking community supervision and imposing

concurrent ten-year prison sentences for two counts of aggravated assault. Tex. Pen. Code Ann.

§ 22.02 (West 2003. Ho was originally convicted on his pleas of guilty to the offenses.

               Ho’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 Ho, was advised of his right to examine the appellate
record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed, but a letter from Ho explaining why

he believes the punishment is too harsh has been read and considered by the Court.

               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 orders revoking community supervision are affirmed.

                                               __________________________________________

                                               Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: August 14, 2003

Do Not Publish

                                                  2