Roseanne Lupita Sheppard v. the State of Texas
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.
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Do Not Publish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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.