Raymond Fernandez v. State

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00643-CR

Raymond Fernandez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 56664, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In May 2005, appellant Raymond Fernandez was placed on deferred adjudication

supervision after he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 22.021 (West Supp. 2006). In September 2006, appellant was adjudged guilty after he pleaded true

to some of the violations alleged in a motion to adjudicate. The court sentenced appellant to fifteen

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: April 20, 2007

Do Not Publish