Quentin Dwight Russell v. State ( 2000 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-00-00232-CR
Quentin Dwight Russell, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, 282ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. F-9946986-TS, HONORABLE ROBERT DOHONEY, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant Quentin Dwight Russell was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision after pleading guilty to aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West
1994). The district court later revoked supervision on the State’s motion, adjudged appellant
guilty, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit, except for a reformable error in the judgment. 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 is no arguable reversible error. 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). A copy of
counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the
appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
In his brief, counsel urges that the district court’s judgment erroneously states that
a $300 fine was imposed. The State concedes the error.
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that reversible error is
not presented. The district court’s judgment is modified to reflect a punishment of imprisonment
for ten years, without a fine. As modified, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
__________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Justice
Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Yeakel
Modified and, as Modified, Affirmed
Filed: December 7, 2000
Do Not Publish
2