A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated assault. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West 1994). The district court assessed punishment, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at imprisonment for thirty-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 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. A pro se brief has been filed.

Appellant's first pro se point of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We have reviewed the testimony and hold that a rational trier of fact could have found each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Under this point of error, appellant argues that article 38.17 was violated. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.17 (West 1979). We are unpersuaded that article 38.17 applies to this case. The first pro se point of error is overruled.

Appellant's second point is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We have considered appellant's contentions in light of the record, and conclude that he has not overcome the presumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The second pro se point of error is overruled.

We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and Kidd

Affirmed

Filed: January 29, 1998

Do Not Publish