Court Opinion

ID: 2871600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 04:01:00.215626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:07.406036
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-06-00006-CR

                                  Randall Kyle Ray, Appellant

                                                 v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

      FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
          NO. 54388, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Randall Kyle Ray was placed on deferred adjudication community

supervision after he pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a child. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.011

(West Supp. 2005). The State subsequently moved to adjudicate and, at a hearing on the motion,

Ray admitted the alleged violations of the terms and conditions of his supervision. The court

adjudged him guilty and imposed a sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment and a $330 fine.

               Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that this 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.

                                              ___________________________________________

                                              Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Waldrop

Affirmed

Filed: May 25, 2006

Do Not Publish

                                                 2