CHARLES EDWIN BULLARD,FROM A DISTRICT COURT APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
NO. 05-88-01281-CR
CHARLES EDWIN BULLARD,FROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
                APPELLANT,
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 
                APPELLEE.OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
 
BEFORE JUSTICES HOWELL, ROWE, AND BURNETT
OPINION PER CURIAM
JUNE 21, 1989
        Charles Edwin Bullard appeals his conviction for theft of property of the value of $750 or less. Punishment was assessed at two years' confinement.
        Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which appellant's attorney has concluded 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.
 
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
 
88-01281.F
 
 
File Date[01-02-89]
File Name[881281]