Court Opinion

ID: 2867263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 01:47:16.200055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:27.537198
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                           NO. 03-02-00585-CR

                                Henry James Weatherman, Appellant

                                                     v.

                                     The State of Texas, Appellee

          FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
              NO. 49,307, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

                Appellant Henry James Weatherman was placed on deferred adjudication community

supervision after he pleaded guilty to possessing between four and two hundred grams of cocaine. Tex.

Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.115 (West Supp. 2003). He later pleaded true to the allegations in the

State=s motion to adjudicate, after which the court revoked supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and

sentenced him to twelve years in prison.

                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, Yeakel and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: March 20, 2003

Do Not Publish

                                                     2