TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 0993034, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, 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. A pro se brief was filed.
Appellant first urges that the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody of the cocaine. The record reflects, however, that the cocaine was placed in a sealed bag by the arresting officer and that a record was kept of each person who thereafter had possession of the bag. The procedure followed was that approved in Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Point of error one is overruled.
Next, appellant contends his trial counsel was ineffective during jury selection because he did not object to the court granting the State's three challenges for cause and did not thereafter request additional peremptory strikes. Appellant does not offer any argument in support of this contention, and in particular does not explain why the State's challenges should not have been granted. The record reflects that two of the three challenged panelists could not consider the full range of punishment and the third had a pending theft accusation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 35.16(a)(3), (b)(3) (West 1989 & Supp. 2000); 35.19 (West 1989). Point of error two is overruled.
Finally, appellant complains of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. Once again, he offers no argument in support of this contention. Point of error three is overruled.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Lee Yeakel, Justice
Before Justices Jones, Yeakel and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed: August 10, 2000
Do Not Publish