William Dalton Elliott a/k/a Bill Elliot a/k/a William D. Elliott v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-11-00236-CR _________________ WILLIAM DALTON ELLIOTT, a/k/a BILL ELLIOT, a/k/a WILLIAM D. ELLIOTT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-08807 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant William Dalton Elliott1 entered a plea of guilty to the charge of evading arrest or detention by use of a vehicle. The trial court found Elliott guilty and assessed punishment at two years of confinement, probated over five years and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Elliott s community supervision. Elliott pled true to four violations of the terms 1 William Dalton Elliott is also known as Bill Elliot, Bill Dalton Elliott, and William D. Elliott. 1 of his community supervision. The trial court found that Elliott violated the terms of the community supervision order, revoked Elliott s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement. Elliott 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 June 16, 2011, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We have 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. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. ___________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on September 28, 2011 Opinion Delivered October 5, 2011 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 2 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
