
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN


 


NO. 3-93-053-CR


SCOTT WASHINGTON,

	APPELLANT

vs.



THE STATE OF TEXAS,

	APPELLEE

 

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 924615, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING
 



PER CURIAM
	A jury found appellant guilty of burglary of a habitation.  Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 30.02 (West 1989).  The district court assessed punishment, enhanced by a previous felony
conviction, at imprisonment for twenty-two 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.  No pro se brief 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 Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones]
Affirmed
Filed:  August 11, 1993
[Do Not Publish]
