Kenneth Dexter Folmar v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 2nd District Court of Cherokee County

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-09-00135-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS KENNETH DEXTER FOLMAR, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE SECOND V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Kenneth Dexter Folmar appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault, following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for fifty years. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault and pleaded guilty. The indictment alleged that Appellant penetrated the sexual organ of a child with his sexual organ.1 The trial court deferred adjudicating Appellant guilty and ordered that Appellant be placed on community supervision for eight years. The State filed a motion to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated certain conditions of his community supervision. The trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion. After the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision as 1 The child was six years old at the time of the assault. 1 alleged in the State’s motion. The trial court subsequently revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for fifty years. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. This brief demonstrates that counsel has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further demonstrates that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.2 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. CONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed.3 By per curiam opinion May 19, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 2 Counsel has provided us with a letter wherein he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and advised Appellant of the right to file a pro se brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. 3 Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n. 35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n. 22. 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.