Therese Ann Ladd v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 251st District Court of Randall County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-06-0398-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JANUARY 30, 2007 ______________________________ THERESE ANN LADD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 17294-C; HON. PATRICK A. PIRTLE, PRESIDING _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Therese Ann Ladd appeals from a judgment revoking her probation and adjudicating her guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by contact. We affirm. The trial court initially deferred appellant s adjudication of guilt and placed her on community supervision. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate her guilty alleging six violations of her probation. Appellant pled true to five of those alleged violations. The court then granted the motion and adjudicated appellant guilty. Appellant s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), representing he has searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The motion and brief illustrate that counsel notified appellant of her right to file her own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any pro se response or brief she cared to file had to be filed by January 29, 2007. To date, no response or request for extension of time to file a response has been received. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal. They involve 1) error in revoking appellant s probation, and 2) ineffective assistance of counsel. However, counsel has satisfactorily explained why each argument lacks merit. We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to reveal such error.1 Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 1 The judgment indicates that the trial court found appellant had comm itted all six alleged violations of her probation. However, on the record, the trial court indicated that the allegations of failure to make various payments were not the basis of its order. Nevertheless, appellant pled true to the allegation she failed to register as a sex offend er an d there was s ufficient evidenc e to support the allegation she failed to attend and suc ces sfully com plete s ex o ffender tre atm ent. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
