Watts, Bryant v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 19, 2013
Docket05-12-01263-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Watts, Bryant v. State (Watts, Bryant 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
Watts, Bryant v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

AFFIRM; Opinion issued April 19, 2013

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01262-CR No. 05-12-01263-CR

BRYANT WATTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-55313-T, F12-55314-T

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, FitzGerald, and Myers Opinion by Justice FitzGerald

Bryant Watts waived a jury, pleaded guilty to possession of less than one gram of cocaine

and to bribery. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West 2010); TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.02(a)(3) (West 2011). In the bribery case, appellant also pleaded true to

one enhancement paragraph. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraph true,

the trial court assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in state jail for the possession of

cocaine conviction and five years’ imprisonment for the bribery conviction. On appeal,

appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no

arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right

to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.

We have reviewed the records and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the

appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably

support the appeals.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 121262F.U05

-2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

BRYANT WATTS, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-12-01262-CR V. F12-55313-T). Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Bridges and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered April 19, 2013.

-3- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

BRYANT WATTS, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-12-01263-CR V. F12-55314-T). Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Bridges and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-4-

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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Watts, Bryant v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-bryant-v-state-texapp-2013.