Alexander Taylor Rose v. State
This text of Alexander Taylor Rose v. State (Alexander Taylor Rose v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 27, 2019.
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00343-CR No. 05-18-00344-CR ALEXANDER TAYLOR ROSE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F16-58702-U, F16-58703-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Molberg A jury convicted Alexander Taylor Rose of evading arrest or detention enhanced by a prior
evading arrest conviction and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (UPFF). The trial court
assessed punishment at confinement for two years in a state jail facility for the evading arrest
conviction and twenty years’ imprisonment for the UPFF conviction. On appeal, appellant’s
attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.
The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents
a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to
advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining
whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.
We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to
file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the
appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeals.
We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47
180343F.U05
–2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER TAYLOR ROSE, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-18-00343-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F16-58702-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Whitehill and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER TAYLOR ROSE, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-18-00344-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F16-58703-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Whitehill and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
–4–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Alexander Taylor Rose v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-taylor-rose-v-state-texapp-2019.