Court Opinion

ID: 2871429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 03:59:04.405047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:42:40.176918
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00018-CR

Clifford Lee Grant, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-DC-05-202634, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
 
A jury found appellant Clifford Lee Grant guilty of tampering with physical evidence. 
See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 37.09 (West 2003).  The trial court assessed punishment at five years’
imprisonment.
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 file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief or other written response 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.
 
 
                                                ___________________________________________
                                                G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Waldrop
Affirmed
Filed:   June 30, 2006
Do Not Publish