







COURT OF APPEALS








COURT
OF APPEALS
EIGHTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL
PASO, TEXAS
 
RITO MONTANEZ ESTRADA,                          )
                                                                              )              
No.  08-03-00388-CR
Appellant,                          )
                                                                              )                    Appeal from the
v.                                                                           )
                                                                              )                 385th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                     )
                                                                              )          
of Midland County, Texas
Appellee.                           )
                                                                              )                 
(TC# CR-28,278)
                                                                              )
 
 
O
P I N I O N
 
Appellant Rito
Montanez Estrada was charged by indictment with the felony offense of driving
while intoxicated.  He was convicted, and
the jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for 5 years and a $2,500
fine.  Appellant timely filed a pro se
Notice of Appeal and counsel on appeal was appointed on August 15, 2003.  




Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a
brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without
merit.  The brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh.
denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by advancing
contentions which counsel says might arguable support the appeal.  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); 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 has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his
right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.
We have carefully
reviewed the entire 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.  A
discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel=s
brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
The judgment is
affirmed.
 
 
November
18, 2004
DAVID WELLINGTON
CHEW, Justice
 
Before Panel No. 2
Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.
 
(Do Not Publish)

