Luke Norton v. State
Luke Norton v. State
Opinion
PER CURIAM
A jury found appellant guilty of intentionally causing serious bodily injury to a child. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(1), (e) (West 1994). (1) The district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for twenty-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 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: August 16, 1995
Do Not Publish 1. The amendments to section 22.04 effective September 1, 1994, are irrelevant to this cause.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.