Stewart, Reneisha A. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

AFFIRMEI); Opinion issued February 27, 2013. In The Qlourt ot tppca( I ittj Itrict at exa at aUa No. 05-12-00948-CR No, 05-12-00949-CR No. 05-12-00950-CR RENEISHA ANQUINETTE STEWART, Appellant V. THE STATE OF FEXAS Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 I)allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-52677-K, F12-54482-K, F11-54792-K MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang-Miers, Murphy, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Murphy Reneisha Anquinette Stewart waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two state jail felony theft of property offenses and possession of less than one gram of cocaine. See TEx. CODE ANN. § 31.03(a) (West Supp. 2012); TExAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § PENAL 481.115(a), (b) (West 2010). The trial court assessed punishment at two years confinement in a state jail in each case. On appeal, appellant s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in eltect. there are no arguable grounds to advance. See Hi Ii v. .Staie, 573 S.W.2d 807. 811 (Tex. Crim, App. IPanel Op,j 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response. and subsequently she filed a request for new trial. Our duty in reviewing an Anders brief is to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for appeal and, if so, remand the case to the trial court so new counsel may be appointed to address those issues. See Bledsoe v. Stare, 178 S.W,3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After reviewing counsel s brief, appellant s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. We affirm the trial court s judgments. . 11 .I/i tt MARY URPHYL JUSTfC Do Not Publish Thx. R. APp. P.47 120948F. U05 -2- 0 QCourt of ppea1 if 11th itritt at exa at atta JUDGMENT RENEISHA ANQUINETTE STEWART. Appellant No. O5-i20O948-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 of Dallas County. Texas (Tr.Ct.No. FI252677-K). Opinion delivered by Justice Murphy, Justices Lang-Miers and Fillmore participating. Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s judgment is AFFIR1VIED. Judgment entered Febmary 27, 2013. )i h MARY MRPHY JUSTICE Qlourt of !(pptat jfiftj Itrict of exa at at1a9 JUDGMENT RENEISHA ANQU INETTE STEWART, Appellant No. O5 1 2M0949-CR V THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No, 4 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. Fl 2-54482-K). Opinion delivered by Justice Murphy. Justices LangMiers and Fillmore participating. Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial courls judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered February 27, 2013. \1. ¢\RY \lURIIfl .JL Si I( I Qtourt of Zppat jfiftb itrttt of 1xa at Oafta JUDGMENT RENEISHA ANQUINETTE STEWART, Appellant No, 05-12-00950-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. Fl 1 54792-K). Opinion delivered by Justice Murphy, Justices Lang-Miers and Fillmore participating. Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s judgment is AFFIR11ED. Judgment entered February 27, 2013. / MARY MPHY JUSTICE

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.