Van Henson, Jr. v. State

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN





NO. 3-91-224-CR

AND

NO. 3-91-225-CR



VAN HENSON, JR.,

APPELLANT



vs.





THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE





FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0911804 & 0911806, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING







PER CURIAM

The district court found appellant guilty of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 20.04 (West 1989, § 29.03 (West Supp. 1992). The court assessed punishment in each cause at imprisonment for forty-five years.

On April 2, 1992, 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.

After his attorney's brief was filed, appellant contacted the Clerk of this Court and indicated his desire to file a pro se brief. This Court granted appellant three extensions of time to file a pro se brief: to May 6, to July 17, and to September 17, 1992. On September 21, appellant was notified that he should file a pro se brief or request a further extension of time no later than October 1, 1992. Appellant has not responded to this notice and no pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel's brief and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.



[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and Kidd]

Affirmed on Both Causes

Filed:  October 14, 1992

[Do Not Publish]