NO. 07-05-0125-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
APRIL 20, 2006
______________________________
KELLY JEROME FRAZIER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 48,953-C; HONORABLE PATRICK A. PIRTLE, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Kelly Jerome Frazier pled guilty to aggravated robbery, and adjudication
of guilt was deferred in favor of seven years of community supervision and a $1,000 fine.
On February 17, 2005, the State filed a second amended motion to proceed with
adjudication of guilt alleging appellant failed to comply with various conditions of his
community supervision. Appellant pled true to the violations alleged, and following an
evidentiary hearing, was adjudicated guilty of the original offense and sentenced to twenty
years confinement. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in support
of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies she has diligently reviewed the
record, and in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can
be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967);
Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, she
concludes the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,
there is no error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has also shown that she sent a copy
of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without
merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that she notified appellant of his right to
review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. Appellant subsequently
filed a pro se response alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of counsel. The
State did not favor us with a brief.
By her Anders brief, counsel discusses whether the trial court abused its discretion
in revoking appellant’s deferred adjudication and sentencing him to twenty years
confinement. We have reviewed this ground in addition to the grounds raised by appellant.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
We have also conducted an independent review of the entire record to determine whether
there are any other arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
3