COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
RICKY LEE WELCH, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
§ § § § § |
No. 08-05-00144-CR Appeal from the 265th District Court of Dallas County, Texas (TC# F-0454217-TR) |
O P I N I O N
Appellant proceeded pro se at trial. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty before a jury to the offense of delivery of cocaine, and the jury assessed punishment, enhanced by allegations of two prior felony convictions, at twenty years’ imprisonment. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate 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. The judgment is affirmed.
RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice
March 16, 2006
Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)