Court Opinion

ID: 2871111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 03:55:25.816279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:51.414543
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00674-CR

Elroy Smith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-DC-2005-904101, HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
 
A jury found appellant Elroy Smith guilty of third-offense theft.  See Tex. Pen. Code
Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2005).  The jury assessed punishment at two years in state
jail.
Appellant’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).  Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and 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.  Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
 
 
 
                                                ___________________________________________
                                                W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton
Affirmed
Filed:   August 31, 2006
Do Not Publish