Court Opinion

ID: 2860038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 20:25:25.467866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:20.691923
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-96-00112-CR

Jason Gordon, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

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

NO. 94-2560-1, HONORABLE WILLIAM S. LOTT, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

	The county court at law found appellant guilty of possessing marihuana.  Controlled
Substances Act, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678, sec. 1, § 481.121, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230, 2939
(Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121, since amended).  The court assessed punishment
at incarceration for 180 days and a $1000 fine, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed
appellant on community supervision.

	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:   August 14, 1996

Do Not Publish