Court Opinion

ID: 2876844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 06:50:58.529217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:16.328739
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00398-CR

Etta Marie John, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 62715, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

		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).  Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of her right
to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se response.
		Having reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response, we agree
that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
		The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

						__________________________________________						Diane M. Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Henson
Affirmed
Filed:   April 23, 2009
Do Not Publish