Brian Loredo v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 264th District Court of Bell County

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-97-00075-CR
Brian Loredo, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 44,711, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 29.03 (West 1994). After accepting the plea and finding that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt, the district court deferred further proceedings and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State later filed a motion to revoke alleging numerous violations of appellant's supervisory conditions. Appellant pleaded true to most of these allegations. The district court revoked supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to imprisonment for fifteen years.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing a contention which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. 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 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 reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The arguable point of error, that trial counsel was ineffective, is clearly unsustainable on this record.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed: August 14, 1997

Do Not Publish