Dawn Rene Herrington v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 25, 2005
• Docket: 08-04-00012-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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(Do Not Publish)