Court Opinion

ID: 2859356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 19:50:53.264911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:09.392570
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

ON REHEARING

NO. 03-94-00099-CR

Luke Norton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0926108, HONORABLE TOM BLACKWELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

	A jury found appellant guilty of intentionally causing serious bodily injury to a
child.  Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(1), (e) (West 1994). (1)  The district court assessed
punishment at imprisonment for twenty-five years.
	Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes 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);
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553

(Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).  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.  Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeal.
	The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Kidd and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed:   August 16, 1995
Do Not Publish
1.        The amendments to section 22.04 effective September 1, 1994, are irrelevant to this cause.