Ernest Edward Fontenot v. State ( 2009 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued April 23, 2009  











    In The

    Court of Appeals

    For The

    First District of Texas




    NO. 01-08-00334-CR




    ERNEST EDWARD FONTENOT, Appellant



    V.



    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




    On Appeal from the 56th Judicial District Court

    Galveston County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause No. 05CR1274




    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Appellant, Ernest Edward Fontenot, pleaded guilty to the reduced offense of indecency with a child by exposure. The trial court admonished appellant about the consequences of entering his plea of guilty, accepted his plea of guilty, deferred adjudication of guilt, and placed him on community supervision for eight years. Subsequently, the State filed a first amended motion to adjudicate guilt. The motion alleged that appellant violated the terms and conditions of community service by failing to pay fees as ordered, failing to participate in community service as ordered, and that he commited a new law violation of indecent exposure. After a hearing on the State's motion, the trial court made a findings of true that appellant had violated his conditions of community service as alleged in paragraphs 1, 12, 13, 16A, 17A, 17B, 19, 42, and 52 of the State's motion. The trial court then found appellant guilty of the original charge, and assessed his punishment at confinement for six years. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We affirm.

    Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error, that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and that the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. Having reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

    We affirm the judgment of the trial Court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Attorney Zachary S. Maloney must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.

    PER CURIUM

    Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Hanks.

    Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-08-00334-CR

Filed Date: 4/23/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/3/2015