Patrick Reville Dixon v. State ( 2005 )

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The opinion and judgment dated January 21, 2005, are withdrawn.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Do Not Publish
2