March 4, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 385th District Court of Midland County, Texas, (Tc#CR28133).
Before Panel No. 4, BARAJAS, C.J., LARSEN, and McCLURE, JJ.
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty before a jury to the offense of theft by repetition. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (Vernon 2003). He was convicted, and the jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for two years, and a fine of $5,000. 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 advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. 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 has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. Counsel's brief sets forth ten possible issues for appeal, and exhaustively relates why each cannot properly be raised. 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 contentions advanced in counsel's brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment is affirmed.