Stowe v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Stowe v. State

224 S.W.3d 222, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 915, 2005 WL 277698

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 3, 2005

Docket08-03-00282-CR

StatusPublished

This text of 224 S.W.3d 222 (Stowe 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

Stowe v. State, 224 S.W.3d 222, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 915, 2005 WL 277698 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice.

Donnie Brambridge Stowe appeals his conviction for violation of a protective order. Appellant was indicted in four counts: stalking (Count I), violation of protective order (Count II), aggravated assault (Count III), and violation of protec-' tive order (Count IV). Appellant waived his right to trial by jury and pled guilty to Count II in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating Appellant guilty and placed him on community supervision for a term of six years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, and the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision and assessed punishment at imprisonment for six years. We affirm.

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See 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). A copy of counsel’s brief had been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant had been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A further discussion of the arguable ground advanced in counsel’s brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice.

Donnie Brambridge Stowe appeals his conviction for violation of a protective order. Appellant was indicted in four counts: stalking (Count I), violation of protective order (Count II), aggravated assault (Count III), and violation of protec-' tive order (Count IV). Appellant waived his right to trial by jury and pled guilty to Count II in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating Appellant guilty and placed him on community supervision for a term of six years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, and the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision and assessed punishment at imprisonment for six years. We affirm.

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See 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). A copy of counsel’s brief had been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant had been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A further discussion of the arguable ground advanced in counsel’s brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 S.W.3d 222, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 915, 2005 WL 277698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stowe-v-state-texapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack