Therese Anne Ladd v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 251st District Court of Randall County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-06-0399-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. 18189-C; HON. PATRICK A. PIRTLE, PRESIDING _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Therese Ann Ladd appeals from a judgment convicting her of failing to comply with the sex offender registration requirements. We affirm. Appellant was initially convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by contact. She was subsequently charged with failing to register as a sex offender within 90 days as required by law. She pled true to that allegation without a recommendation as to punishment. Appellant’s counsel has now moved 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) whether appellant was afforded due process at her plea hearing, and 2) the effectiveness of trial 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. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2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.