Court Opinion

ID: 2862476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 22:27:34.280264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:16.240554
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-98-00539-CR

Arthur Floyd Edwards, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 48,054, HONORABLE MARTHA TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to sexual assault.  The district
court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years and $3500
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, 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.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and Powers*

Affirmed

Filed:   January 28, 1999

Do Not Publish

* 	Before John Powers, Senior Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. 
See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1998).