Patrick Reville Dixon v. State

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00425-CR

Patrick Reville Dixon, Appellant v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 52422, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The opinion and judgment dated January 21, 2005, are withdrawn.

Appellant Patrick Reville Dixon was placed on deferred adjudication supervision after he pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a child. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.011 (West Supp. 2004-05). The district court later revoked supervision, adjudged him guilty, and imposed a five-year prison sentence. This appeal followed.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant filed a written response to counsel’s brief. In it, he complains that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the time of his original guilty plea. Issues relating to the original plea may not be raised on appeal from the decision to adjudicate. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Appellant must pursue the ineffective assistance claim in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s written response. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear Affirmed Filed: February 3, 2005 Do Not Publish