Court Opinion

ID: 2867719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 02:18:00.25218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:14.360201
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00290-CR

Richard Lee Karl, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 54,042, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Richard Lee Karl pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to manufacturing
more than 200 grams of methamphetamine.  See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 81.112(a), (e)
(West 2003).  The court adjudged him guilty and assessed his punishment at thirty years'
imprisonment and a $5000 fine.
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 he 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.

				___________________________________________
				W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed:   October 28, 2004
Do Not Publish