Court Opinion

ID: 2862872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 23:06:43.572886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:43.448436
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00081-CR

Kevin Jerome David, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

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

NO. 46,464, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Kevin Jerome David pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by contact
and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision.  The district court later revoked
supervision on the State's motion, adjudged appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at
imprisonment for five years.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11 (West Supp. 2000).

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:   August 10, 2000

Do Not Publish