Court Opinion

ID: 2918067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 22:33:29.372497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:24.280728
License: Public Domain

NO.
12-07-00132-CR
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
TYLER, TEXAS
PHILLIP LARLAN CLAUSSEN,    §                      APPEAL
FROM THE SEVENTH
APPELLANT
 
V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE   §                      SMITH
COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                                                                                                                           

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
            Phillip
Larlan Claussen appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a
child, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years.  Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in
compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d
137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  We affirm.
 
Background
            Appellant
was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child.  Appellant was admonished  and pleaded “guilty.”  The matter proceeded to the sentencing
phase.  Ultimately, the trial court
sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for twenty-five years.  This appeal followed.
 
Analysis
Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s
counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v.
State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s counsel
states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error
upon which an appeal can be predicated. 
He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this
case.  In compliance with Anders,
Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the
procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is
unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1  We have likewise reviewed the record for
reversible error and have found none.
                                                                                                            
Conclusion
            As
required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion for consideration with
the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s
motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the
trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
 
Opinion
delivered February 29, 2008.
Panel
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1
Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided
Appellant with a copy of this brief. 
Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause.  The time for filing such a brief has expired
and we have received no pro se brief.