Court Opinion

ID: 2867554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 02:16:16.620461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:30.711125
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-04-00391-CR

                       Patrick Lamont Hood a/k/a Pack Rat, Appellant

                                                v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

      FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
            NO. 52540, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Patrick Lamont Hood pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen.

Code Ann. § 29.03 (West Supp. 2004-05). The trial court found that the evidence substantiated his

guilt, deferred further proceedings, and placed him on community supervision. At a later hearing

on the State’s motion to adjudicate, appellant confessed that he violated the conditions of his

supervision. The court adjudged him guilty and imposed an eight-year sentence.

               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, who 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 Kidd and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed: December 16, 2004

Do Not Publish

                                                  2