Brandy Carnell Vaillant v. State
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00734-CR
Brandy Carnell Valliant, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. CR2017-773, THE HONORABLE DON R. BURGESS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Brandy Carnell Valliant was found guilty by a jury of the offense of
aggravated robbery and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code
§ 29.03.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by
a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 86-87 (1988).
Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that she has provided copies of
the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record
and file a pro se brief; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. Appellant
requested access to the appellate record, and pursuant to this Court’s order, the clerk of the trial
court provided written verification to this Court that the record was provided to appellant. See
Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 321. Upon appellant’s motion, the deadline to file appellant’s pro se
response was extended to October 23, 2019. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or
requested another extension of time to file a response.
We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate
counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at
766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel
that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgment of conviction
is affirmed.
__________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: December 20, 2019
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brandy Carnell Vaillant v. State (Brandy Carnell Vaillant v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.