Antwain Jabor Franklin v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 411th District Court of Polk County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-09-00024-CR _________________ ANTWAIN JABOR FRANKLIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 411th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20,034 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, Antwain Jabor Franklin pled guilty in Cause No. 20,034 to the first degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of more than 200 grams but less than 400 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(e) (West 2010). The trial court sentenced Franklin to forty-five years of imprisonment and ordered that the sentence run consecutively to the sentence served in Cause No. 15,571. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1 12.32 (West Supp. 2010); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 42.08. (West Supp. 2010). We affirm the judgment. On appeal, Franklin’s 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 October 14, 2010, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. Franklin filed a response in which, among other things, he contends he had standing to challenge the search of the vehicle where the contraband was found and that the alert by the drug dog did not provide probable cause for the officers to search the vehicle. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree 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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2 ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on March 2, 2011 Opinion Delivered March 9, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 3

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.