<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0">

<p><font size="+1"><strong><center>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</font></center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><hr align="center" width="26%">

<center>NO. 03-<a name="1">00</a>-00<a name="2">461</a>-CR</center>
</strong>

<p><strong><hr align="center" width="26%">




<center><a name="3">Richard Nathaniel Robertson</a>, Appellant</center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><center>v.</center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><center>The State of Texas, Appellee</center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><hr size="3">

<center>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF <a name="4">BELL</a> COUNTY, <a name="5">27TH</a> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</center>
</strong>

<p><strong><center>NO. <a name="6">50,697</a>, HONORABLE <a name="7">MARTHA J. TRUDO</a>, JUDGE PRESIDING</center>
</strong>

<p><strong><hr size="3">




</strong>The district court adjudged appellant Richard Nathaniel Robertson guilty of two
counts of robbery.  <em>See</em> Tex. Penal Code Ann. &#167; 29.02 (West 1994).  The court assessed
punishment for each count at imprisonment for twelve years.

<p>Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of <em>Anders v. California</em>, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced.  <em>See also</em> <em>Penson v. Ohio</em>, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); <em>High v. State</em>,
573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); <em>Currie v. State</em>, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App.
1974); <em>Jackson v. State</em>, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); <em>Gainous v. State</em>, 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.

<p>We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

<p>The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p>				<u>                                                                      </u>

<p>				J. Woodfin Jones, Justice

<p>Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Yeakel

<p>Affirmed

<p>Filed:   September 21, 2000

<p>Do Not Publish
</body>
</html>
