Court Opinion

ID: 2870186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 03:14:17.980972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:44.199181
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00492-CR

Paul Calvin Davis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. A-04-0287-S, HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
 
A jury found appellant Paul Calvin Davis guilty of two counts of retaliation.  See Tex.
Pen. Code Ann. § 36.06 (West Supp. 2004-05).  After finding that appellant was a habitual felony
offender, the jury assessed prison terms of forty and twenty-five 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 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.  Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
 
 
                                                ___________________________________________
                                                David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   April 7, 2005
Do Not Publish