COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
USSLY RAY REVELS, )
) No. 08-02-00286-CR
Appellant, )
) Appeal from the
v. )
) 282nd District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, )
) of Dallas County, Texas
Appellee. )
) (TC# F-0137271-LS)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Ussly Ray Revels was charged by indictment with the first degree felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age. See Tex.Pen.Code Ann. ' 22.021 (Vernon 2003). The indictment included an enhancement paragraph, alleging a prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age. At trial, Appellant entered a plea of not guilty. The jury found Appellant guilty as charged in the indictment. Appellant entered a plea of true to the enhancement paragraph and the State also admitted evidence on the prior conviction at the punishment phase of trial. The jury assessed punishment at life confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Appellant was sentenced in accordance with the jury=s assessment. Appellant filed a motion for new trial and timely filed his notice of appeal.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she 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 entire 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.
May 22, 2003
DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice
Before Panel No. 1
Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)