TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 48,023, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant Anthony James Holland pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11(a)(1) (West 1994); 22.011(a)(2)(A) (West Supp. 1999). After accepting appellant's judicial confession, the district court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years.
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. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Before Justices Jones, B. A. Smith and Yeakel
Affirmed
Filed: April 22, 1999
Do Not Publish