Narrative Opinion Summary
Daniel Darrell Ford pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison by the 331st Judicial District Court of Travis County, presided over by Judge Bob Perkins. Ford's court-appointed attorney filed a brief declaring the appeal to be frivolous, in compliance with Anders v. California, which necessitates a professional evaluation of the record to demonstrate the absence of arguable grounds for appeal. Ford was informed of his right to review the appellate record and to submit a pro se brief, but no such brief was filed. After reviewing the case, the court concurred with the attorney's assessment, finding no merit in the appeal. The attorney's motion to withdraw was granted, and the conviction was affirmed. The decision was filed on September 15, 2005.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Upon review, the court agreed with the attorney's evaluation and found no merit in the appeal, leading to the affirmation of the conviction.
Reasoning: After reviewing the case, the court concurred with the attorney's assessment, finding no merit in the appeal.
Anders Brief Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, indicating that after a thorough evaluation of the record, no arguable grounds for appeal were found.
Reasoning: Ford's court-appointed attorney filed a brief declaring the appeal to be frivolous, in compliance with Anders v. California, which necessitates a professional evaluation of the record to demonstrate the absence of arguable grounds for appeal.
Motion to Withdrawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw after determining that the appeal was frivolous.
Reasoning: The attorney's motion to withdraw was granted, and the conviction was affirmed.
Right to File Pro Se Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant was informed of his right to review the appellate record and submit a pro se brief, though he did not exercise this right.
Reasoning: Ford was informed of his right to review the appellate record and to submit a pro se brief, but no such brief was filed.