Appeals in credit card abuse and child endangerment cases dismissed on Anders brief

AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Waldrop (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)

Karrie Smith v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 426th District Court of Bell County
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Waldrop (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)

Karrie Smith v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 426th District Court of Bell County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. 60514 & 60515, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Karrie Smith pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to credit card abuse (cause number 60514) and endangering a child (cause number 60515). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.041, 32.31 (West Supp. 2007). The trial court adjudged her guilty of both offenses and assessed two eighteen-month state-jail terms, to be served concurrently.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are 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 records 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 her right to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief was filed, but appellant did write a letter to the Court explaining why she believes that her conviction for endangering a child was improper.
We have reviewed the records, counsel's brief, and appellant's letter. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeals are frivolous and without merit.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
_________________________________________
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Affirmed
Filed: February 1, 2008
Do Not Publish