Court Opinion

ID: 2873434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 04:57:04.503732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:30.494666
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-06-00467-CR

                               Michael Wade Parrett, Appellant

                                                v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
        NO. 02-131-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

               In September 2002, appellant Michael Wade Parrett pleaded guilty to controlled

substance fraud and was placed on deferred adjudication supervision for five years. See Tex. Health

& Safety Code Ann. § 481.129 (West 2003). In July 2006, after appellant pleaded true to one of

several violations of supervision alleged by the State, the court adjudged appellant guilty and

sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.

               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). 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.

                                              ___________________________________________

                                              David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: March 30, 2007

Do Not Publish

                                                 2