TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00622-CR

William Leo Peevy, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 50,018, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant William Leo Peevy was convicted following his plea of guilty to aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2000). As called for in a plea bargain agreement, the district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for twenty 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. 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 judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Lee Yeakel, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Jones* Affirmed Filed: January 11, 2001 Do Not Publish

* Before J. Woodfin Jones, Justice (former), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 75.003(a)(1) (West 1998).