Roseanne Lupita Sheppard v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 26, 2022
Docket03-21-00127-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Roseanne Lupita Sheppard v. the State of Texas (Roseanne Lupita Sheppard v. the State of Texas) 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
Roseanne Lupita Sheppard v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00127-CR

Roseanne Lupita Sheppard, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 82380, THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Roseanne Lupita Sheppard pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention

with a vehicle and was placed by the trial court on deferred adjudication community supervision

for a period of six years. See Tex. Penal Code § 38.04(b)(2)(A); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art.

42A.101. She now seeks to appeal from the trial court’s deferred-adjudication order.

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 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, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of

the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744.

We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record

of the plea and sentencing proceedings below and 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 order of deferred

adjudication is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: April 26, 2022

Do Not Publish

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)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Garner v. State
300 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Roseanne Lupita Sheppard v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roseanne-lupita-sheppard-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2022.