Travis Flanagan v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 182nd District Court of Harris County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued December 8, 2011. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00106-CR TRAVIS L. FLANAGAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 182nd Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1187517 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant, Travis L. Flanagan, guilty of the offense of sexual assault,1 and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ยง 20.011 (Vernon 2011). Appellant s counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). When this Court receives an Anders brief from a defendant s courtappointed appellant counsel, we conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous, i.e., whether it presents any arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. An appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that could conceivably persuade the court. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In conducting our review, we consider the appellant s pro se response, if any, to his counsel s Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Appellant has filed a pro se response, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because there was no outcry indicating a lack 2 of consent, the record does not show any physical force or threats of violence, and there is no physical evidence supporting a finding of penetration. Having reviewed the record, counsel s Anders brief, and appellant s pro se response, we conclude that the appeal is frivolous and no reversible error exists. See id. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant appellate counsel s motion to withdraw.2 See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 72 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (per curiam). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 2 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Downs v. State, 137 S.W.3d 837, 842 n.2 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref d). 3
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.
