Linton Alexander v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 22, 2002
Docket13-01-00475-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Linton Alexander v. State (Linton Alexander 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
Linton Alexander v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

                                             NUMBERS

                                          13-01-475-CR

                                          13-01-476-CR

                                          13-01-477-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                CORPUS CHRISTI

LINTON ALEXANDER,                                                           Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                          Appellee.

                       On appeal from the Criminal District Court

                                of Jefferson County, Texas.

                                   O P I N I O N

                  Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

                                  Opinion by Justice Dorsey


Pursuant to separate plea-bargain agreements appellant, Linton Alexander, pleaded (1) guilty in Cause No. 13-01-475-CR to aggravated assault, (2) guilty in Cause No. 13-01-476-CR to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and (3) guilty in Cause No. 13-01-477-CR to sexual assault of a child.  The court followed the plea-bargain agreements and sentenced him to ten years deferred adjudication community supervision, five years deferred adjudication community supervision, and ten years deferred adjudication community supervision, respectively.  The State filed a motion to revoke, and appellant pleaded true to count four (failure to perform community service), count five (violation of curfew), count seven (failure to participate in G.E.D. program), and count eight (failure to complete anger-management classes).

After appellant pleaded true to these counts the trial court heard evidence on count one of the State=s first-amended motion to revoke.  The State=s evidence showed that Officers Brown and Shehane were on patrol when Brown saw appellant and another person walking in the middle of the road.  Upon seeing Brown, appellant dropped a white sock on the road.  Shehane retrieved the sock, which contained a .38 revolver with three live rounds in it.  Appellant denied possessing the weapon.

After hearing the evidence the trial court found count one to be true.  The trial court revoked appellant=s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of sexual assault of a child, aggravated assault, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.  The trial court sentenced him to ten years in prison for aggravated assault, ten years in prison for sexual assault of a child, and two years in a state jail facility for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.


                                                                    Anders Briefs

Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief for each cause in which he has concluded that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.[1]  The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), as they present a professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)).  Appellant=s counsel has certified in his briefs that he has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate records and to file pro se briefs.  Appellant has filed no pro se briefs in any case.

Upon receiving an Anders brief an appellate court must conduct "a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous."  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).  We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and have found no arguable points of error, fundamental or otherwise, upon which appellant could obtain relief.  See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.  We agree with appellant's counsel that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.

We AFFIRM the trial court=s judgments.

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 22nd day of August, 2002.                             



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)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Linton Alexander v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linton-alexander-v-state-texapp-2002.