Casey Brizendine v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Casey Brizendine v. State

DecidedMay 17, 2006

Docket04-05-00261-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Casey Brizendine v. State (Casey Brizendine 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

Casey Brizendine v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00261-CR

Casey BRIZENDINE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-CR-7376

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 17, 2006

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Casey Brizendine pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance in exchange for the State's recommendation that adjudication be deferred. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Brizendine on community supervision for a period of three years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging Brizendine violated various conditions of his community supervision. Brizendine pleaded true to four alleged violations. The trial court adjudicated Brizendine guilty and sentenced him to two years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - State Jail Division.

Brizendine's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel states Brizendine was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw. Brizendine was informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief but has not done so.

After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Brizendine's counsel and affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Sarah B. Duncan , Justice

Do not publish

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00261-CR

Casey BRIZENDINE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-CR-7376

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 17, 2006

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Casey Brizendine pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance in exchange for the State's recommendation that adjudication be deferred. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Brizendine on community supervision for a period of three years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging Brizendine violated various conditions of his community supervision. Brizendine pleaded true to four alleged violations. The trial court adjudicated Brizendine guilty and sentenced him to two years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - State Jail Division.

Brizendine's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel states Brizendine was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw. Brizendine was informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief but has not done so.

After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Brizendine's counsel and affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Sarah B. Duncan , Justice

Do not publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Casey Brizendine v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-brizendine-v-state-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack