Court Opinion

ID: 2861291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 21:26:54.420428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:38.341068
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-98-00009-CR

George Robert Dart, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

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

NO. 96-230-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

After accepting appellant's guilty plea and judicial confession, the district court found him
guilty of burglary of a habitation and assessed punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years.  Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).  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 Chief Justice Yeakel, Justices Aboussie and Jones

Affirmed

Filed:   August 31, 1998

Do Not Publish