Court Opinion

ID: 2870473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 03:17:26.586925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:21.263666
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00303-CR

Richard Wayne Carrell, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 02-981-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

In May 2003, appellant Richard Wayne Carrell was placed on deferred adjudication
supervision after he pleaded guilty to sexual assault.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.011 (West Supp.
2004-05).  One year later, after a hearing on the State's motion, the court adjudicated Carrell guilty
and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment.
Carrell'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 Carrell, and he 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.

				__________________________________________
				Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton
Affirmed
Filed:   January 27, 2005
Do Not Publish