Court Opinion

ID: 2865031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 00:49:15.476367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:02.335677
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00038-CR

Augustin Cantu III, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

NO. 0785145D, HONORABLE DON LEONARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Augustin Cantu III pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a child.  See Tex.
Pen. Code Ann. § 22.011 (West Supp. 2002).  The court adjudged him guilty and assessed
punishment at imprisonment for seven years.

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.  Counsel's
motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

				__________________________________________
				Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   August 30, 2002
Do Not Publish