Bobby Roy Anspach v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 264th District Court of Bell County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-01-00622-CR NO. 03-01-00623-CR Bobby Roy Anspach, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 45,475 & 45,940, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING In cause number 45,475, appellant Bobby Roy Anspach pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to deliver, was adjudged guilty by the court, and was sentenced to twenty years= imprisonment. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.112 (West Supp. 2002). In cause number 45,940, appellant pleaded guilty to failing to appear, was adjudged guilty by the court, and was sentenced to ten years= imprisonment. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 38.10 (West 1994). Appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed briefs concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet 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); 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 briefs were delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate records and to file pro se briefs. No pro se briefs have been filed. We have reviewed the records and counsel=s briefs and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. Counsel=s motions to withdraw are granted. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. __________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear Affirmed Filed: May 31, 2002 Do Not Publish 2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.
