 |
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto 
|
|
||
|
Information |
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLawDate: 04-19-2019 Case Style: James Wesley Pierce v. The State of TexasCase Number: 06-18-00166-CR Judge: Ralph K. Burgess Court: Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana Plaintiff's Attorney: Reid McCain Defendant's Attorney: Scott Rectenwald Description:  James Wesley Pierce pled guilty to sexual assault of a child1 and indecency with a child2 and was placed on ten years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Pierce had committed three different violations of the conditions of his community supervision. Pierce pled not true to each of the alleged violations, and following a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment adjudicating guilt and sentencing Pierce to five years’ incarceration. Pierce appeals. Pierce’s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case, summarizing the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and concluding that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Counsel forwarded copies of his brief and motion to withdraw to Pierce and informed him of his rights to review the appellate record and to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, should he so desire. Additionally, counsel provided Pierce with a complete copy of the record in this case. 1TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2) (West 2019). 2TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1) (West 2019). 3 By letter dated January 15, 2019, this Court advised Pierce that his pro se response was due on or before February 14, 2019. By letter dated February 21, 2019, Pierce was advised that the case would be submitted on March 14, 2019. Pierce did not file a pro se response or a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id. Outcome: We affirm the judgment of the trial court.3 Plaintiff's Experts: Defendant's Experts: Comments: |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
