Bobby Roy Anspach v. State
Bobby Roy Anspach v. State
Opinion
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed briefs concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet 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 briefs were delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate records and to file pro se briefs. No pro se briefs have been filed.
We have reviewed the records and counsel's briefs and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. Counsel's motions to withdraw are granted.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
__________________________________________
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed: May 31, 2002
Do Not Publish
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.