Mark Alfred Villarreal v. State
Mark Alfred Villarreal v. State
Opinion
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
PER CURIAM
After accepting appellant's plea of no contest and hearing his judicial confession, the district court found him guilty of possessing less than 28 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (West 1992). The court assessed punishment, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at imprisonment for forty-five years.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes 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); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 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 carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
[Before Justices Powers, Kidd and B. A. Smith]
Affirmed
Filed: April 7, 1993
[Do Not Publish]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.