Court Opinion

ID: 2866728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 01:41:30.710734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:12.126150
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00789-CR

Richard Lee Hamilton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

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

NO. 52,202, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Richard Lee Hamilton pleaded no contest to an indictment accusing him
of felony driving while intoxicated.  Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 49.04(a), .09(b)(2) (West 2003).  The
court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment and a $750 fine.
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).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his
right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief was filed, but
appellant did write the Court a letter that has been considered.
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 B. A. Smith and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   July 11, 2003
Do Not Publish