Fred Arthur Dixon v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 26, 2009
• Docket: 01-07-00766-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 26, 2009

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-07-00766-CR

---

FRED ARTHUR DIXON, JR., Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 46,272

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          A jury convicted appellant, Fred Arthur Dixon, Jr., of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (Vernon Supp. 2008). The trial judge assessed punishment at twenty years in prison on count one and forty-five years in prison on count two. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief.

Facts

          Appellant lived in an apartment with his sister, his niece, and the niece’s live-in girlfriend. At about 2:00 p.m. on February 8, 2004, appellant attacked his niece and her girlfriend with a knife, injuring both. Appellant was found competent to stand trial and proceeded on an insanity defense.

Analysis

          Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief stating his belief that the appeal is without merit and frivolous and has moved to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting the appellate grounds that might arguably be supported by the record and discussing why those grounds have no merit. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant has filed a pro se response.

          A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed. Upon reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Onofre v. State, 193 S.W.3d 148, 149 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). We have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record. We conclude that there is no reversible error and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Id.

Conclusion

          We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Attorney Thomas J. Wooten must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                                             George C. Hanks

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Alcala and Hanks.

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).