Court Opinion

ID: 2860189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 20:28:28.155451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:02.101046
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-95-00379-CR

Darren L. Hackett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

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

NO. 43,961, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

	After accepting appellant's guilty plea and judicial confession to the offense of
intentional or knowing injury to a child, the district court found that the evidence substantiated
appellant's guilt, deferred further proceedings, and placed appellant on community supervision. 
Later, following a hearing on the State's motion, the court revoked community supervision,
adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for eight 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 Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Kidd

Affirmed

Filed:  May 29, 1996

Do Not Publish