Court Opinion

ID: 2861085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 21:20:08.140024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:37.029741
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-98-00211-CR

Donald Newbury, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

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

NO. 0980716, HONORABLE FRED A. MOORE, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment,
enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for life.  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. 
Although appellant requested and was given additional time to examine the record and prepare a
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 Jones, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Affirmed

Filed:   December 29, 1998

Do Not Publish