
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN





NO. 03-06-00643-CR


Raymond Fernandez, Appellant

v.


The State of Texas, Appellee





FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 56664, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING



M E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N

In May 2005, appellant Raymond Fernandez was placed on deferred adjudication
supervision after he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 22.021 (West Supp. 2006).  In September 2006, appellant was adjudged guilty after he pleaded true
to some of the violations alleged in a motion to adjudicate.  The court sentenced appellant to fifteen
years' imprisonment.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced.  See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137
(Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right
to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  Counsel's
motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.


				__________________________________________
				David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Affirmed
Filed:   April 20, 2007
Do Not Publish
