
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

 


NO. 3-91-456-CR


RICHARD ARTHUR WILLIAMS,

	APPELLANT

vs.



THE STATE OF TEXAS,

	APPELLEE

 

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BELL COUNTY, 
NO. 2C91-97,310, HONORABLE JOHN BARINA, JUDGE
 



PER CURIAM
	After hearing appellant's plea of guilty and judicial confession, the county court
at law found him guilty of criminal mischief.  Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.03(a), (b)(3) (Supp.
1992).  The court assessed punishment at incarceration for 120 days.
	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.  No pro se brief has been filed.
	We have carefully 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 Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and B. A. Smith]
Affirmed
Filed:  March 11, 1992
[Do Not Publish]
