TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-08-00047-CR NO. 03-08-00048-CR
Jared William Mayville, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 04-1126-K26 & 06-2013-K26 HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING
These two causes were consolidated for trial. In cause number 04-1126-K26, the district court found that Jared William Mayville violated the terms and conditions of his probation that had been imposed following his conviction for the offense of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). In cause number 06-2013-K26, a jury found Mayville guilty of the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (West 2003). The district court assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment for the offense of burglary of a habitation. The jury, after finding true an enhancement paragraph alleging that Mayville had a prior conviction for aggravated assault, assessed punishment at 23 years’ imprisonment for the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. On the State’s motion, the district court cumulated the sentences.
For each cause, appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief concluding that the appeal is 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). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s briefs and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s briefs and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s motions to withdraw are granted. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
__________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton Affirmed Filed: November 21, 2008 Do Not Publish