COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
RITO MONTANEZ ESTRADA, )
) No. 08-03-00388-CR
Appellant, )
) Appeal from the
v. )
) 385th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, )
) of Midland County, Texas
Appellee. )
) (TC# CR-28,278)
)
O P I N I O N
Appellant Rito Montanez Estrada was charged by indictment with the felony offense of driving while intoxicated. He was convicted, and the jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for 5 years and a $2,500 fine. Appellant timely filed a pro se Notice of Appeal and counsel on appeal was appointed on August 15, 2003.
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 advancing contentions which counsel says might arguable support the appeal. 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.
November 18, 2004
DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice
Before Panel No. 2
Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)