TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 7062, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, 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 insofar as no reversible error is shown. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
We do find nonreversible error in the judgment. The judgment recites that appellant waived trial by jury and pleaded guilty. In fact, appellant was convicted by a jury after pleading not guilty. The judgment shall be modified to so reflect. As modified, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
__________________________________________
Lee Yeakel, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson
Modified and, as Modified, Affirmed
Filed: December 13, 2001
Do Not Publish