Court Opinion

ID: 2874160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 05:45:36.002961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:37.300655
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00244-CR

Richard Earl Hawkins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-DC-08-200102, HONORABLE MICHAEL J. MCCORMICK, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

		Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the instant
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).  Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief, was provided a copy of the
appellate record, and filed a pro se brief.
		We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and the pro se brief.  We agree that
the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  We therefore
affirm the judgment of conviction and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

						__________________________________________
						Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson
Affirmed
Filed:   October 10, 2008
Do Not Publish