Court Opinion

ID: 2872494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 04:46:00.437608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:39.889236
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-06-00450-CR

                              Jeffrey Richard Wilson, Appellant

                                                v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
        NO. 04-399-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

               In September 2004, appellant Jeffrey Richard Wilson pleaded guilty to felony assault

of a family member. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(West Supp. 2006). The trial court deferred

adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision. In July 2006, after a hearing

on the State’s motion, the court adjudged appellant guilty and imposed a ten-year prison sentence.

               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: October 19, 2007

Do Not Publish

                                                 2