Alejandro Loredo, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee (2011)

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding 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);  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).   Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and 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.   We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).   Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Diane M. Henson, Justice