Glenda Taylor Umphres v. State

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN





NO. 3-91-462-CR



GLENDA TAYLOR UMPHRES,

APPELLANT



vs.





THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE





FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY,

NO. 21,145, HONORABLE TIMOTHY G. MARESH, JUDGE







PER CURIAM

After appellant pleaded no contest, the trial court found her guilty of driving while intoxicated, first offense, and assessed punishment at incarceration for six months and a $1000 fine. Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation.

Appellant's attorney, although retained, 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 carefully 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 B. A. Smith]

Affirmed

Filed:  February 12, 1992

[Do Not Publish]