TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-07-00471-CR
Robert Ernest Adkins Jr., Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 59788, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Robert Ernest Adkins Jr., was placed on deferred adjudication supervision
after he pleaded guilty to engaging in organized criminal activity.1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 71.02 (West Supp. 2007). Nine months later, appellant returned to court and pleaded true to most
of the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate. The court adjudged him guilty and imposed
a ten-year prison sentence.
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,
1
Appellant pleaded guilty using the name Mark Everett Adkins. The State learned his true
name after the deferred adjudication order was made.
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). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and 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. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
__________________________________________
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop
Affirmed
Filed: April 3, 2008
Do Not Publish
2