Michael Wade Parrett v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 30, 2007
• Docket: 03-06-00467-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

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Do Not Publish