Luis Martinez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 147th District Court of Travis County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-90-278-CR
LUIS MARTINEZ,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 104,189, HONORABLE MACE B. THURMAN, JR., JUDGE

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to possessing more than 28 grams but less than 400 grams of cocaine, a controlled substance. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115 (Pamph. 1991). In accordance with a plea bargain agreement, the court assessed punishment at imprisonment for forty years.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal, with one exception, is frivolous. The brief meets 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 points of reversible error to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, ___ U.S. ___, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Cr. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Cr. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Cr. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Cr. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

 

In his brief, counsel points out that there is an error in the judgment that should be reformed. Tex. R. App. P. Ann. 80(b) (Pamph. 1990). The judgment erroneously recites that appellant was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The judgment is reformed to delete the phrase "with intent to deliver."

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that, except as previously noted, the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

As reformed, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and B. A. Smith]

Affirmed

Filed: July 24, 1991

[Do Not Publish]