Peter Antonio Kinnett, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-09-00440-CR _________________ PETER ANTONIO KINNETT, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ____________________________________________________________________ _ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-04160 ___________________________________________________________________ __ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Peter Antonio Kinnett, Jr. pled guilty to driving with a child passenger while intoxicated. The trial court found Kinnett guilty and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Kinnett on community supervision for three years, and assessed a fine of $750.00. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Kinnett s community supervision. Kinnett pled true to one violation of the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court found that Kinnett violated the terms of the community supervision order, revoked Kinnett s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility. 1 Kinnett s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is 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 November 19, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agreed with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. _________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on April 7, 2010 Opinion Delivered April 14, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
