From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogers v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin
Jan 16, 2009
Nos. 03-08-00590-CR, 03-08-00591-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 16, 2009)

Opinion

Nos. 03-08-00590-CR, 03-08-00591-CR

Filed: January 16, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal from the District Court of Bell County, 27th Judicial District Nos. 62,720 and 62,721, Honorable Fancy H. Jezek, Judge Presiding.

Before Justices PATTERSON, WALDROP and HENSON.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


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). Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and 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. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Affirmed


Summaries of

Rogers v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin
Jan 16, 2009
Nos. 03-08-00590-CR, 03-08-00591-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 16, 2009)
Case details for

Rogers v. State

Case Details

Full title:Brandon Antony Rogers, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin

Date published: Jan 16, 2009

Citations

Nos. 03-08-00590-CR, 03-08-00591-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 16, 2009)