Court Opinion

ID: 2875878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 06:39:45.430407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:52.554125
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00103-CR

Claude Marion Mitchell Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 2C08-07621, HONORABLE GERALD M. BROWN, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

		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. 
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 Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Affirmed
Filed:   October 28, 2009
Do Not Publish