PER CURIAM

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he states that the appeal in this cause is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The brief does not, however, "discuss the evidence adduced at the trial, point out where pertinent testimony may be found in the record, refer to pages in the record where objections were made, the nature of the objection, the trial court's ruling, and discuss either why the trial court's ruling was correct or why the appellant was not harmed by the ruling of the court." High, 573 S.W.2d at 813.

An "Anders brief" should assist the appellate court in determining both that counsel has conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). The brief filed by appointed counsel in this cause does not satisfy either of these purposes.

Counsel for appellant, Mr. Mark Janssen, is ordered to tender a new brief fully complying with Anders, Gainous, and High by no later than January 10, 2003. No extension of time for filing will be granted.

It is ordered December 12, 2002.

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Do Not Publish