Court Opinion

ID: 2864428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 00:03:23.903002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:40.085894
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00622-CR

William Leo Peevy, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 50,018, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant William Leo Peevy was convicted following his plea of guilty to
aggravated sexual assault.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2000).  As called
for in a plea bargain agreement, the district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for twenty
years.

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).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant
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.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

				__________________________________________

				Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Jones*

Affirmed

Filed:   January 11, 2001

Do Not Publish

*	Before J. Woodfin Jones, Justice (former), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.  See
Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 75.003(a)(1) (West 1998).