AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed July 28, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01096-CR 

DADRIAN MONTREZ MCCLAIN, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court 

Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 31862 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Nowell 

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness 

Dadrian Montrez McClain appeals a judgment revoking his community 

supervision, adjudicating his guilt for aggravated sexual assault of a child, and 

sentencing him to thirty years’ confinement. We affirm the judgment. 

McClain pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. Pursuant to a 

plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community 

supervision for ten years. The order required him to register as a sex offender for 

life. 

McClain was released from jail and attempted to register as a sex offender, 

but he was unable to register in the time allotted. The State moved to revoke his 
 –2– 

community supervision, citing his failure to register. The trial court granted the 

motion and sentenced McClain to life in prison. On appeal, we reversed the 

conviction and remanded for further proceedings. McClain v. State, No. 05-19-

00146-CR, 2020 WL 913844, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 26, 2020, pet. ref’d) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication). 

Following remand, the State again moved to adjudicate guilt. The motion 

alleged that McClain had violated the terms of community supervision by 

consuming controlled substances and by failing to report to the probation 

department. He initially pleaded not true to the allegations. However, during the 

hearing on the motion, he changed his plea to true. The trial court adjudicated 

McClain guilty of the underlying offense and sentenced him to thirty years’ 

confinement. He now appeals. 

McClain’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and 

a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements 

of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 744 

(1967). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to McClain. We advised McClain of 

his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a response. 

In the Anders context, we must independently evaluate the record to determine 

whether the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991). We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We 
 –3– 

agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly 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, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the 

judgment. 

201096F.P05 

 

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DADRIAN MONTREZ MCCLAIN, 

Appellant 

No. 05-20-01096-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 354th Judicial 

District Court, Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 31862. 

Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Nowell participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 28th day of July, 2022.