From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fontnette v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Feb 17, 2010
Nos. 09-09-00302-CR, 09-09-00303-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 17, 2010)

Opinion

Nos. 09-09-00302-CR, 09-09-00303-CR

Submitted on February 9, 2010.

Opinion Delivered February 17, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH.

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause Nos. 92795 and 92796. Affirmed.

Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appellant Dawayne Fontnette pled guilty to aggravated robbery and assault on a public servant. In each case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Fontnette guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Fontnette on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $2500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Fontnette's unadjudicated community supervision in both cases. Fontnette pled "true" in both cases to two violations of the conditions of his community supervision. In each case, the trial court found that Fontnette violated the conditions of his community supervision and found him guilty. In the aggravated robbery case, the trial court assessed punishment at forty-five years of confinement. In the assault on a public servant case, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. The trial court ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. Fontnette's appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel's professional evaluation of the records and conclude the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 10, 2009, we granted an extension of time in each case for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgments.

Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.


Summaries of

Fontnette v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Feb 17, 2010
Nos. 09-09-00302-CR, 09-09-00303-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 17, 2010)
Case details for

Fontnette v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAWAYNE FONTNETTE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

Date published: Feb 17, 2010

Citations

Nos. 09-09-00302-CR, 09-09-00303-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 17, 2010)