APPELLANT
APPELLEE
PER CURIAM
A jury found appellant guilty of theft from a person. Act of May 27, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 599, § 1, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 2244, amended by Act of May 26, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 724, §§ 2,3, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 3273, 3274-76, amended by Act of Mar. 21, 1991, 72d Leg., R.S., ch. 14, § 284(80), 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 42, 237, amended by Act of May 23, 1991, 72d Leg., R.S., ch. 565, § 1, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 2003 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03, since amended). The district court assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for twenty-five years.
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. A pro se brief has been filed.
In his pro se brief, appellant contends that he was unlawfully arrested without probable cause, evidence of an extraneous offense was improperly adduced, and he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial. The probable cause contention was not raised at trial and thus was not preserved for review. Appellant's objection to the extraneous offense testimony was sustained, the jury was instructed to disregard, and appellant requested no further relief. Counsel's failure to request a mistrial did not, as appellant contends, constitute ineffectiveness. The pro se points of error are overruled.
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 Jones and Kidd
Affirmed
Filed: September 28, 1994
Do Not Publish