Denise Annette Dixon v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 3, 2021
Docket10-21-00048-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Denise Annette Dixon v. the State of Texas (Denise Annette Dixon v. the State of Texas) 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
Denise Annette Dixon v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00048-CR

DENISE ANNETTE DIXON, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. 19-25693

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Denise Anette Dixon entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of possession of

a controlled substance. The trial court convicted Dixon of the offense and assessed

punishment at eighteen months confinement in a state jail facility. We affirm.

Dixon’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in

support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and

that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance

with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the

duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the

proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders v. California, 386

U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit"

when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10

(1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal

to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Dixon is granted.

STEVE SMITH Justice

Dixon v. State Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed November 3, 2021 Do not publish [CR25]

Dixon v. State Page 3

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)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Denise Annette Dixon v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denise-annette-dixon-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2021.