Court Opinion

ID: 2869299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 03:04:02.727924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:34.744168
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00343-CR

Charles Edward Cross, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 55293, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
 
Appellant Charles Edward Cross was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision after pleading guilty to aggravated assault.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (West
Supp. 2004-05).  The court later granted the State’s motion to adjudicate and sentenced Cross to four
years in prison.
Cross’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).  Cross received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate
record and 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 B. A. Smith, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   October 13, 2005
Do Not Publish