COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
| CHARLES BRETT RUSSELL,
Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
§
§ § § § |
No. 08-02-00026-CR Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas (TC# F01-40434-I) |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. He was convicted, and the court assessed punishment at twenty (20) years' imprisonment. We affirm.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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 has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
The judgment is affirmed.
July 8, 2003
RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice
Before Panel No. 4
Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and McClure, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
| CHARLES BRETT RUSSELL,
Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
§
§ § § § |
No. 08-02-00026-CR Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas (TC# F01-40434-I) |
ORDER
On this the 8th day of July, 2003, came on to be heard George R. Conkey's motion to withdraw. Having determined that counsel has met the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967) and Tex. R. App. P. 6.5, the motion to withdraw is granted on the following terms and conditions:
Counsel is directed to (1) forward to Appellant this order and the Court's opinion and judgment issued this same day in this cause; (2) notify Appellant of the availability of discretionary review; and (3) notify Appellant of the appellate deadlines applicable to discretionary review.
RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice
Before Panel No. 4
Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and McClure, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)