COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
KEITH DEMOND SNELL, §
No. 08-15-00116-CR
§
Appellant, Appeal from the
§
V. 19th District Court
§
of McLennan County, Texas
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
(TC# 2013-1987-Cl)
§
Appellee.
§
OPINION
Keith Demond Snell appeals from a judgment revoking community supervision and
imposing a sentence of a $1,000 fine and imprisonment for a term of seven years. Appellant
waived his right to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of guilty to assault family violence
with a prior conviction. The trial court followed the plea bargain and assessed punishment at a
fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for a term of seven years, probated for seven years. The State
later filed a motion to revoke alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of
community supervision and Appellant entered a plea of true to several of the allegations. The
trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision and imposed the original sentence. We
affirm.
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)(“In Texas, an
Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it
must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.”); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the
Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel’s brief and the motion to withdraw to
Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and
to seek discretionary review. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 (Tex.Crim.App.
2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). Counsel also provided Appellant with a form motion for
access to the appellate record as required by Kelly. Appellant has not requested access to the
appellate record nor has he filed a pro se brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and agree that the appeal is
wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
November 4, 2015
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
-2-