TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. CR00-001, HONORABLE BARBARA WALTHER, JUDGE PRESIDING
Smith'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 advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. 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). Smith also filed a pro se brief.
We have reviewed the record and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. For the reasons discussed in counsel's brief, none of the arguable points presents reversible error. The inconsistencies in the testimony cited by Smith in his pro se brief do not warrant his conclusion that witnesses perjured themselves.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
__________________________________________
Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed: December 13, 2001
Do Not Publish