Court Opinion

ID: 2862950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 23:08:51.462517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:49.113579
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-99-00620-CR

Juan Medellin, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0952245, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Juan Medellin waived his right to trial by jury and pleaded guilty to
murder.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02 (West 1994).  The district court adjudged him guilty
and assessed punishment at imprisonment for forty years.

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 advancing a contention which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. 
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, 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.  A discussion of the contention advanced in counsel's brief would
serve no beneficial purpose.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

				                                                                       
 

				Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Jones, Yeakel and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed:   June 29, 2000

Do Not Publish