11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Jose Rogelio Cardenas
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-02-00116-CR B Appeal from Dallas County
State of Texas
Appellee
The trial court convicted appellant of delivery of cocaine and assessed his punishment at confinement for 3 years and a $2,000 fine. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he stated that he has conscientiously examined the record and the applicable law. Counsel reviewed the indictment, the use of an interpreter, the sufficiency of the evidence, the punishment imposed, and the effectiveness of trial counsel. Appellate counsel stated that he can find no point of error that can be supported by the record.
Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. We agree that the appeal is without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
January 23, 2003
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.