Tennison, Blair Douglas v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 31, 2005
• Docket: 14-04-00724-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00724-CR

BLAIR DOUGLAS TENNISON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 919,962

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On March 4, 2003, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child.  A finding of guilt was deferred and appellant was placed on community supervision for five years and assessed a $1,000 fine.  On April 21, 2004, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt.  After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the motion true, adjudicated appellant=s guilt, and sentenced appellant on July 21, 2004, to confinement for six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $1,000.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  Appellant was provided a copy of the record and granted an extension of time to file his response.  More than thirty days have elapsed, and as of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31, 2005.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Frost. 

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).