
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN




NO. 03-06-00006-CR




Randall Kyle Ray, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee





FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 54388, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING




M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
 
Appellant Randall Kyle Ray was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision after he pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a child.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.011
(West Supp. 2005).  The State subsequently moved to adjudicate and, at a hearing on the motion,
Ray admitted the alleged violations of the terms and conditions of his supervision.  The court
adjudged him guilty and imposed a sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment and a $330 fine.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that this 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.
 
 
                                                ___________________________________________
                                                Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Waldrop
Affirmed
Filed:   May 25, 2006
Do Not Publish
