Keith Demond Snell v. The State of Texas Appeal from 19th District Court of McLennan County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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-
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.
