William Leo Peevy v. State ( 2001 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-00-00622-CR
William Leo Peevy, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 50,018, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant William Leo Peevy was convicted following his plea of guilty to
aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2000). As called
for in a plea bargain agreement, the district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for twenty
years.
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). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant
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.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
__________________________________________
Lee Yeakel, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Jones*
Affirmed
Filed: January 11, 2001
Do Not Publish
2
*
Before J. Woodfin Jones, Justice (former), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. See
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 75.003(a)(1) (West 1998).
3