Laray Dealy Kelly v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 64th District Court of Swisher County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-11-00342-CR, 07-11-00343-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C MARCH 26, 2012 LARAY DEALY KELLY, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY; NO. A4333-1006, A4334-1006; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID JR., JUDGE Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Laray Dealy Kelly, entered pleas of guilty to two separate indictments alleging injury to a child.1 Appellant s pleas of guilty resulted in him being placed on two years deferred adjudication community supervision on each case. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant guilty in each case. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty of each offense, and following a punishment hearing, assessed appellant s punishment at confinement in the Institutional 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ยง 22.04(a)(3) (West 2011). Division of the Texas Department of Corrections for a term of eight years on each case. Appellant has appealed his convictions. We affirm. Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 2 Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed.2 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 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.
