
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN


 



NO. 3-94-077-CR



MARTIN LYNN WILLIAMS,

	APPELLANT

vs.



THE STATE OF TEXAS,

	APPELLEE


 


FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 91-700-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

 



PER CURIAM
	In March 1992, appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation.  Penal Code,
63d Leg., R.S., ch. 399, sec. 1, § 30.02, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 883, 926 (Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 30.02, since amended).  Pursuant to a plea bargain, the district court found that the evidence
substantiated appellant's guilt but deferred adjudication and placed appellant on probation.  In
December 1993, the district court revoked appellant's probation on the State's motion, adjudicated
him guilty, and imposed sentence of imprisonment for fifty years.
	Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the
appeal is 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
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  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.  Appellant was granted two extensions of time to file a pro se brief, but none has been
filed.
	We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeal.
	The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed:   September 21, 1994
Do Not Publish
