Court Opinion

ID: 2862953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 23:08:56.14593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:25.831745
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00090-CR

Bill Cantwell, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 99-448-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury found appellant Bill Cantwell guilty of theft of property having a value of
$1500 or more.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2000).  The jury
assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for twenty
years.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(2) (West Supp. 2000).

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.

				                                                                       

				Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Jones, Yeakel and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed:   June 29, 2000

Do Not Publish