Andrew Coffee v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 51st District Court of Tom Green County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-01-00322-CR Andrew Coffee, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. A-99-0794-S, HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING Appellant Andrew Coffee was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision after pleading guilty to aggravated assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02(West 1994). The district court subsequently adjudicated appellant guilty and imposed sentence of eight years in prison and a $500 fine. Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); 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 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. Counsel s brief concludes, after a thorough discussion of the relevant facts and applicable law, that the arguable points of error do not present reversible error. We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel s brief would serve no beneficial purpose. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear Affirmed Filed: February 7, 2002 Do Not Publish 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.