Court Opinion

ID: 2952079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-16 21:59:14.881043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:28.021083
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00643-CR

Ira Joe Mitchell, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 09-689-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, 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 Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson
Affirmed
Filed:   July 14, 2010
Do Not Publish