COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
|
JOSE RAMON GARCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
' ' ' ' ' |
No. 08-03-00253-CR Appeal from the 385th District Court of Midland County, Texas (TC#CR27437) |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child and was placed on deferred adjudication probation for five years. The State filed a motion to revoke probation and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the State=s motion. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to eight years= confinement. 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 was advised of his right to 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.
SUSAN LARSEN, Justice
January 15, 2004
Before Panel No. 4
Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and McClure, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)