Johnny Adame v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00293-CR

Johnny Adame, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-DC-09-301773, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Johnny Adame pled guilty to robbing a bank but not true to the State’s enhancement allegations. A jury found the enhancements to be true and assessed punishment at seventy-five 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 him that he 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.

Having reviewed the evidence presented to the jury and the procedures that were observed, nothing in the record might arguably support the appeal. We agree with counsel 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David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: June 13, 2012 Do Not Publish