11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Kenneth Reed
Appellant
Vs. Nos. 11-03-00012-CR & 11-03-00014-CR B Appeals from Dallas County
State of Texas
Appellee
These are appeals from two judgments adjudicating Kenneth Reed’s guilt. Appellant entered pleas of nolo contendere to two offenses of indecency with a child younger than 17. Plea bargain agreements were not reached. On November 15, 2001, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years, and assessed a $1,000 fine for each offense. At the October 10, 2002, hearing on the State’s motions to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by using cocaine on four occasions and by being unsuccessfully discharged from the sex offender treatment program. In each case, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for 15 years. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she conscientiously examines the entire record and the applicable law. After reviewing appellant’s initial pleas of nolo contendere, his judicial confessions, the evidence presented at trial, appellant’s pleas of true, the motions to revoke, the performance of trial counsel, appellant’s mental competency, and revocation and adjudication proceedings in the trial court, counsel has concluded that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. Counsel further concludes that she can find no arguable points to advance on appeal.
In each appeal, counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Pro se briefs have not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
The record reflects that at the November 15, 2001, punishment hearing following appellant’s pleas of nolo contendere, the victim in Cause No. 11-03-00012-CR testified. The victim stated that, while she was a freshman at Lincoln Communication Magnet High School, appellant was her teacher in Pre-AP Geography. The victim stated that the girl who was the victim in Cause No. 11-03-00014-CR was also in that class. Appellant was a coach and a teacher at the school. The victim stated that appellant was “a friendly person,” that he “seemed very caring,” and that he ”was like a father to all of the freshman.” The victim described how appellant touched her breast and continued to do so until she “ran off.” The victim stated that this was “not something that [she] would have anticipated from” appellant.
Appellant stated that he had taught for 13 years and that his actions were prompted by “stupidity.” Appellant further stated that he was “ashamed” and “confused” at his actions. He apologized to the victim who had testified and to her father, and he requested that the trial court place him on community supervision. Appellant stated that the offenses took place at the end of September when both girls were still new to the school. Appellant admitted that there had been prior allegations in 1998 and in 1999 of inappropriate touching while he was teaching at the same school; however, he denied both allegations.
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. We agree that the appeals are without merit.
The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
PER CURIAM
September 4, 2003
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.