Guadalupe M. Espinoza v. State
Guadalupe M. Espinoza v. State
Opinion
Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of felony driving while intoxicated and true to enhancement paragraphs alleging two previous felony convictions. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the court assessed punishment at imprisonment for twenty-five years.
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 advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. 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. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would serve no beneficial purpose.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Before Chief Justice Yeakel, Justices Aboussie and Jones
Affirmed
Filed: August 13, 1998
Do Not Publish
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.