Court Opinion

ID: 2866686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 01:41:05.236263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:17.081671
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00703-CR

Daniel Thomas Sandoval, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3012045, HONORABLE TOM BLACKWELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

A jury convicted appellant Daniel Thomas Sandoval of burglary of a habitation.  Tex.
Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003).  The district court imposed punishment at twenty years'
imprisonment.
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.

  
				Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed:   July 24, 2003
Do Not Publish