eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2001-02

Darrell Allen v. State ( 2001 )


Menu:
 
  •      TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-00-00457-CR
Darrell Allen, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 0972680, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING
The district court found appellant Darrell Allen guilty of possessing cocaine and
assessed punishment at incarceration in a state jail for two years. See Tex. Health & Safety Code
Ann. § 481.115(a), (b) (West Supp. 2001). The court suspended imposition of sentence and
placed appellant on community supervision. One year later, following a hearing on the State’s
motion, the court revoked supervision and imposed sentence.
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). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant
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.
The order revoking supervision is affirmed.
__________________________________________
Mack Kidd, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed: February 1, 2001
Do Not Publish
2