TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-99-00076-CR
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NOS. 48,959 & 49,303, HONORABLE WILLIAM E. BACHUS, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant Mark Anthony Hamilton pleaded guilty to two indictments accusing him of aggravated robbery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 1994). After accepting the pleas and hearing appellant's judicial confessions, the district court adjudged him guilty in both causes and assessed punishment at imprisonment for twenty years.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding 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); 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 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. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed: May 6, 1999
Do Not Publish