Anthony Dean Fuller v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 20, 2004
Docket03-03-00759-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Anthony Dean Fuller v. State (Anthony Dean Fuller 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.

Bluebook
Anthony Dean Fuller v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00759-CR

Anthony Dean Fuller, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 44291, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In January 1995, appellant Anthony Dean Fuller was placed on deferred adjudication

supervision for ten years after he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault. In December 2003,

after a hearing on the State’s motion, the district court adjudicated Fuller guilty and imposed a

fourteen-year sentence.

Fuller’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.

State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). Fuller has also filed a pro se brief. In nine points of error, he contends the evidence

introduced at the adjudication hearing was the product of and tainted by an improper modification

of the conditions of supervision. Because these points challenge the court’s decision to proceed to

adjudication, they are not properly before us. See Garcia v. State, 45 S.W.3d 740, 742 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref’d); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 2004)

(no appeal from decision to adjudicate).

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se brief. We find nothing

in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: May 20, 2004

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Fernando Garcia v. State
45 S.W.3d 740 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Anthony Dean Fuller v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-dean-fuller-v-state-texapp-2004.