TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 0983523, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding 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); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 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. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The district court's judgment erroneously recites that appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. The judgment is modified to reflect a plea of not guilty and to delete the reference to a plea bargain. As modified, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Patterson
Modified and, as Modified, Affirmed
Filed: November 4, 1999
Do Not Publish