Court Opinion

ID: 2861668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 21:33:25.128021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:48.693469
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-97-00302-CR

Phillip Duncan, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0964014, HONORABLE MIKE LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

The district court found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment
at imprisonment for thirty years.  Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 1994).  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, 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 judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed:   January 29, 1998

Do Not Publish