TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-94-00650-CR
NO. 03-94-00651-CR
AND
NO. 03-94-00652-CR
Cedric Todd Carter, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, 265TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. F94-55366-KR, F94-53949-LR & F94-52156-NR
HONORABLE KEITH T. DEAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM
In the first two of these causes, appellant pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to deliver. Controlled Substances Act, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678, sec. 1, § 481., 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230, 2935 (Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112, since amended). In the third, appellant pleaded guilty to delivering cocaine. Id. The district court assessed punishment in each cause at imprisonment for twenty-five years.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeals are 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 records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
We have 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 Aboussie and Jones
Affirmed on All Causes
Filed: February 15, 1995
Do Not Publish