Opinion
No. 08-02-00119-CR.
February 25, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 238Th District Court of Midland County, Texas, (TC# CR-26,337).
Before Panel No. 4: BARAJAS, C.J., LARSEN, and McCLURE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possession of marijuana in an amount of more than four ounces and less than five pounds. Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana, a state jail felony and the jury set punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 180 days and a $450 fine. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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 has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment is affirmed.