texas-health-and-human-services-commission-texas-department-of-assistive ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-09-00643-CR
    Ira Joe Mitchell, Appellant
    v.
    The State of Texas, Appellee
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. 09-689-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
    frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
    arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988); 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). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to
    examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
    We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
    and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See
    Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is
    granted.
    The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
    __________________________________________
    Diane M. Henson, Justice
    Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson
    Affirmed
    Filed: July 14, 2010
    Do Not Publish
    2