David Villalobos Yanez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 22nd District Court of Caldwell County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-89-154-CR
DAVID VILLALOBOS YANEZ,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 9780, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE

PER CURIAM

The district court found appellant guilty of aggravated assault and assessed punishment at imprisonment for eight years. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 22.02 (1989 & Supp. 1992).

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which she concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing two contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 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.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would serve no beneficial purpose. We note only that the factual allegations in the two points of error are without support in the record.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

[Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd]

Affirmed

Filed: March 18, 1992

[Do Not Publish]