Denise Gail Dooley v. State, 06-14-00240-CR

Denise Gail Dooley was charged by information with attempting to possess or obtain a controlled substance by fraud and waived indictment. She pleaded guilty to the court on April 18, 2013.
The trial court deferred finding of guilt and placed Dooley on four years' deferred-adjudication probation with conditions.
On December 31, 2013, the parties agreed to modify probation to require completion of a TDCJ substance-abuse felony punishment facility (SAFP).
The State later filed an Application for Adjudication; on December 11, 2014 Dooley pleaded "true" to the allegations and the court adjudicated guilt.
A bench punishment hearing followed; the court heard stipulations and evidence from both sides, Dooley made no objections to evidence or exhibits during punishment, and the court sentenced her to seven years' confinement (with credit for time served).
Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, arguing no nonfrivolous appellate issues exist: plea compliance with Article 26.13, absence of objections at punishment, and no viable ineffective-assistance claim on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dooley)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Did Dooley's guilty plea comply with Art. 26.13 admonishment requirements?	Plea was constitutionally valid and Dooley was competently and voluntarily admonished.	Trial court substantially complied with Article 26.13 and plea was knowing/voluntary.	Court concluded the record shows substantial compliance; plea valid.
Were there preserved or meritorious objections to evidence at the punishment stage that would support reversal?	No objections were made at punishment; evidence was largely stipulations and the guilty plea.	No meritorious legal claim exists regarding evidence or exhibits—sentencing was within the court’s discretion.	Court found no preserved objections and no meritorious challenge to the punishment phase.
Is an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim viable based on this record?	Dooley contends no record support for deficient performance or prejudice; she expressed satisfaction with counsel.	The record lacks affirmative evidence of deficient performance or resulting prejudice; strong presumption counsel’s actions were reasonable.	Court held ineffective-assistance claim not supported by the record and is not viable on direct appeal.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw because appeal is frivolous)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (procedural guidance on Anders-type filings in Texas)
Fuentes v. State, 688 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (substantial compliance with plea-advisement requirements evidences a knowing and voluntary plea)
Jackson v. State, 811 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (on pleading and preservation principles and review of counsel performance)