Jeremy John Sandersfeld v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 12, 2015
Docket05-13-01141-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jeremy John Sandersfeld v. State (Jeremy John Sandersfeld v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jeremy John Sandersfeld v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion Filed January 12, 2015

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01141-CR

JEREMY JOHN SANDERSFELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-82341-07

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright

Jeremy John Sandersfeld appeals following the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated

sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court assessed punishment at twenty-eight years’

imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in

effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate

courts and counsel in Anders cases).

Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief,

appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate

court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 131141F.U05

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE

‐2‐

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JEREMY JOHN SANDERSFELD, Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Appellant Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 416-82341-07. No. 05-13-01141-CR V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Myers and Brown participating. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered January 12, 2015.

‐3‐

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jeremy John Sandersfeld v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeremy-john-sandersfeld-v-state-texapp-2015.