# Armando Sanchez, M.D. v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and Donald W. Patrick, M.D.

> Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · June 29, 2007

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2873017

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- **Decided:** June 29, 2007
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2873017

## Opinion text

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00095-CR

Andre Marquis Thomas, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 59206, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Andre Marquis Thomas pleaded guilty to possession more than four grams

of cocaine with intent to deliver. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (d) (West

2003). The district court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at twenty-

three years’ imprisonment.

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. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Affirmed

Filed: June 29, 2007

Do Not Publish

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2873017. Public record. Not legal advice.