COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EDMUND NELSON,                                           )

                                                                              )               No.  08-03-00060-CR

Appellant,                          )

                                                                              )                    Appeal from the

v.                                                                           )

                                                                              )                 238th District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                     )

                                                                              )            of Midland County, Texas

Appellee.                           )

                                                                              )                  (TC# CR-27,828)

                                                                              )

O P I N I O N

Edmund Nelson was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault.  He now appeals the conviction and attendant sentence of 17 years= confinement.  We will affirm.

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See 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 has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel=s brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

July 24, 2003

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)