Court Opinion

ID: 2860229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 20:29:20.398117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:19.208502
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-96-00061-CR

Donald Norman Ravy II, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 45,487, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

	The district court found appellant guilty of two counts of injury to a child.  The
court assessed punishment for each count at imprisonment for twenty-five years and a $5000 fine.

	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 judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Jones and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed:   May 8, 1996

Do Not Publish