Christian Poindexter v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 29, 2023
• Docket: 09-23-00157-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00157-CR __________________

CHRISTIAN POINDEXTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 26717 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted appellant Christian Poindexter for the offense of

indecency with a child by contact, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 21.11(a)(1), (d). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Poindexter pleaded guilty

to the lesser included offense of indecency with a child by exposure, a third-degree

felony. See id. § 21.11(a)(2), (d). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find

1 Poindexter guilty of the lesser included offense of indecency with a child by

exposure, but deferred adjudication, placed Poindexter on community supervision

for ten years, and assessed a $500 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to

Revoke Unadjudicated Community Supervision. Poindexter pleaded “true” to

violating four terms of the community supervision order. After conducting a

sentencing hearing, the trial court found that Poindexter violated the terms of his

community supervision, revoked Poindexter’s community supervision, found

Poindexter guilty of the lesser included offense of indecency with a child by

exposure, and imposed a sentence of ten years of confinement.

Poindexter’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). On August 9, 2023, we granted an extension of time

for Poindexter to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Poindexter.

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

2 appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on November 14, 2023 Opinion Delivered November 29, 2023 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

1Poindexter may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3