Date: 09-13-2016

Case Style:

Case Number: 03-15-00641-CR

Judge: David Puryear

Court: TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Plaintiff's Attorney:

The Honorable Lisa C. McMinn

Defendant's Attorney:

Mr. Dal Ruggles

Description: Appellant was charged with indecency with a child. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1)
(providing that person commits offense if he “engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the
child to engage in sexual contact” and if child is “younger than 17 years of age”), (d) (stating that
offense is second-degree felony). Under the terms of a plea-bargain agreement, appellant agreed to
enter a plea of guilty to the alleged offense in exchange for the State agreeing to recommend that
appellant’s adjudication of guilt be deferred and that appellant be placed on community supervision
for ten years. The district court accepted the terms of the plea bargain, deferred appellant’s
adjudication of guilt, and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. A few months
later, the State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt and revoke his community supervision. During
the hearing on the State’s motion, the district court determined that appellant violated the terms and
conditions of his community supervision, found appellant guilty of indecency with a child, and
sentenced appellant to fifteen years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.33 (listing permissible punishment
range for second-degree felony). Appellant appeals the district court’s judgment adjudicating his
guilt and revoking his community supervision.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (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)
(explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel
in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”).
Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to
appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and
pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided
appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address
of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has
not requested pro se access to the appellate record or filed a pro se brief.

Outcome:

We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the district court’s judgment adjudicating appellant’s guilt.1

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:

Texas Department of Corrections Offender Info