Court Opinion

ID: 2863070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 23:11:52.77274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:06.222260
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00011-CR

Ronny Santellano Rangel, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 46,308, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

In November 1996, appellant Ronny Santellano Rangel pleaded guilty to aggravated
assault and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision.  See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 22.02 (West 1994).  In December 1999, appellant was adjudged guilty on the State's
motion and sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen 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.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

	                                                                       

	J. Woodfin Jones, Justice

Before Justices Jones, Yeakel and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed:   April 27, 2000

Do Not Publish