Dana Thompson v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00447-CR Dana Thompson, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 14059, HONORABLE REVA TOWSLEE CORBETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Dana Thompson was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised her that she had the right to examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.

We have considered the record, the procedures that were observed by the trial court, and counsel’s brief, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

___________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose Affirmed Filed: August 25, 2011 Do Not Publish