CURLEY JAMES HENDERSON,FROM A DISTRICT COURT APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
 
NO. 05-88-01150-CR
 
CURLEY JAMES HENDERSON,FROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
        APPELLANT,
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 
        APPELLEE.OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
BEFORE JUSTICES HOWELL, LAGARDE AND WHITTINGTON
OPINION BY JUSTICE HOWELL
APRIL 18, 1989
        Curley James Henderson appeals his conviction by a jury for possession of a controlled substance. Punishment was assessed at sixteen years' confinement and a $2,000 fine.
        Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which appellant's attorney concludes that the appeal is wholly 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, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant and appellant has been advised that he would be given the opportunity to examine the appellate record and that he had a right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
        We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
        The judgment is affirmed.
 
                                                          
 
 
                                                  
                                                  CHARLES BEN HOWELL
                                                  JUSTICE
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
88-01150.F
 
 
 
File Date[01-02-89]
File Name[881150]