eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2005-09

Shelton Timmons v. State ( 2005 )


Menu:
 
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-05-00013-CR
Shelton Timmons, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 51329, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Shelton Timmons was placed on deferred adjudication supervision after
he pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.11 (West
2003). He was adjudged guilty by the court following a hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate
and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment.
Timmons’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). Timmons 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 Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton
Affirmed
Filed: September 15, 2005
Do Not Publish
2