AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-93-393-CR
DANIEL T. VASQUEZ,
APPELLANT
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 0930117, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM
After accepting appellant's guilty plea and hearing his judicial confession, the district court found him guilty of retaliation. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 36.06 (West Supp. 1993). The court assessed punishment at imprisonment for six years, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which she 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 B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed: November 24, 1993
Do Not Publish