Gilfret Hunt v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 299th District Court of Travis County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-91-222-CR
GILFRET HUNT,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 104,056, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE

PER CURIAM

A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 22.021 (1989). The jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for life.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 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 grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 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. Appellant availed himself of that right.

 

In four pro se points of error, appellant argues that the judgment of conviction must be reversed because of errors or omissions in the appellate record. In point one, appellant urges that a portion of the testimony by the physician who examined the victim is missing. We have carefully examined the statement of facts. The material to which we understand appellant to refer was contained in the medical report prepared by the doctor and used by defense counsel during cross-examination. This report was not offered in evidence. No reversible error is presented.

In point two, appellant complains that the statement of facts does not contain a pretrial hearing held November 2, 1990. At this hearing, the court considered appellant's motion for discovery and inspection. The record reflects that this motion was granted in full, with two exceptions. Appellant does not contend that either of the court's unfavorable rulings at this hearing were error. Neither counsel nor appellant requested a transcription of the court reporter's notes from this hearing. Again, no reversible error is presented.

In his third point of error, appellant notes that the docket sheet reflects that the State waived portions of the indictment, but that no formal waiver motion appears in the record. In point four, appellant states that the attorney questioning a witness is misidentified. Neither of these points presents reversible error.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

[Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd]

Affirmed

Filed: April 22, 1992

[Do Not Publish]