Bobby Tyrone Lincoln v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 3, 1997
• Docket: 10-97-00095-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Bobby Tyrone Lincoln v. The State of Texas

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-97-095-CR

     BOBBY TYRONE LINCOLN,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                              Appellee

From the 195th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # F96-78034-HN

O P I N I O N

      After waiving his right to a jury trial, Bobby Lincoln was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to two years’ confinement. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.07 (Vernon 1994). The sentence was probated for five years and he was fined $2,500. As a condition of probation, Lincoln must serve 180 days in jail. He informed the court of his desire to appeal, and the court appointed appellate counsel, who has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 S.W.2d 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d) (interlocutory order discussing procedures for Anders appeals).       In a statement to the Court, appellate counsel stated, “After thorough examination and diligent search of the transcript and statement of facts, counsel for appellant can find no ground of error that can be supported by the record and has determined that the appeal in this cause is without merit.” We have independently reviewed the record, and we are satisfied that appellate attorney has thoroughly searched the record for any arguable appellate claim. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1904, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have determined that appellate counsel correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Id.

      Counsel advised Lincoln that he had the right to review the record and to file a pro-se brief on his own behalf. Lincoln has not filed a brief in spite of the fact that he was granted an extension of time to do so. See Johnson, 885 S.W.2d at 647. Thus, because we have no viable points of error to consider, the judgment is affirmed. Id.

                                                             BILL VANCE

                                                             Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

           Justice Cummings, and

           Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed December 3, 1997

Do Not Publish