Court Opinion

ID: 2866271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 01:36:41.930694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:47.119017
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00358-CR

Charles Howard, Sr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

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

NO. 46053, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

In July 1996, appellant Charles Howard, Sr., was placed on deferred adjudication
community supervision for ten years after he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault.  At a May
2003 hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate, Howard admitted violating the terms and
conditions of supervision.  The court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to twelve years in
prison.
Howard'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 Howard, who 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.

				__________________________________________
				Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed:   October 23, 2003
Do Not Publish