






Criminal Case Template






COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS



DAWN RENE HERRINGTON,

                            Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                            Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-04-00012-CR

Appeal from the

County Court

of Ward County, Texas

(TC# 21945)




O P I N I O N

           This is an appeal from a jury conviction for the offense of possession of marijuana in
an amount of two ounces or less.  The court assessed punishment at twelve months’
probation and a fine of $100.  We affirm.
           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 presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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 was advised of her right 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 wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find nothing in the record that might
arguably support the appeal.  A discussion of the matters discussed in counsel’s brief would
add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
           The judgment is affirmed.
 
                                                                  RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice
August 25, 2005

Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
