Dadrian Montrez McClain v. The State of Texas Appeal from 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed July 28, 2022 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-01096-CR DADRIAN MONTREZ MCCLAIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 31862 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness Dadrian Montrez McClain appeals a judgment revoking his community supervision, adjudicating his guilt for aggravated sexual assault of a child, and sentencing him to thirty years’ confinement. We affirm the judgment. McClain pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for ten years. The order required him to register as a sex offender for life. McClain was released from jail and attempted to register as a sex offender, but he was unable to register in the time allotted. The State moved to revoke his community supervision, citing his failure to register. The trial court granted the motion and sentenced McClain to life in prison. On appeal, we reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. McClain v. State, No. 05-1900146-CR, 2020 WL 913844, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 26, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Following remand, the State again moved to adjudicate guilt. The motion alleged that McClain had violated the terms of community supervision by consuming controlled substances and by failing to report to the probation department. He initially pleaded not true to the allegations. However, during the hearing on the motion, he changed his plea to true. The trial court adjudicated McClain guilty of the underlying offense and sentenced him to thirty years’ confinement. He now appeals. McClain’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to McClain. We advised McClain of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a response. In the Anders context, we must independently evaluate the record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We –2– agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. /Robbie Partida-Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE 201096F.P05 –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 31862. Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Pedersen, III and Nowell participating. DADRIAN MONTREZ MCCLAIN, Appellant No. 05-20-01096-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 28th day of July, 2022. –4–
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.
