Court Opinion

ID: 2866974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 01:44:05.833815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:10.106035
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00435-CR

Robert Martin, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 955530, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

A jury found appellant Robert Martin guilty of aggravated sexual assault and assessed
punishment at imprisonment for life and $10,000 fine.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (West
2003).  His 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 he 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 judgment of conviction is affirmed.

				__________________________________________
				W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   May 15, 2003
Do Not Publish