TIMOTHY ALEXANDER v. The State of TexasAppeal from 195th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MODIFY and AFFIRM; November 8, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01345-CR TIMOTHY ALEXANDER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11-34377-N MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice O Neill A jury convicted Timothy Alexander of possession of marijuana in an amount of five pounds or less but more than four ounces and assessed punishment at three years imprisonment and a $1,500 fine. On appeal, appellant s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is 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 effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel s brief, appellant s pro se response and motions, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court s judgment incorrectly recites the pleas to and findings on two enhancement paragraphs as N/A. The record shows that during the punishment phase, appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs, and the jury found the two enhancement paragraphs to be true. We modify the judgment to show appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs and the jury found the enhancement paragraphs true. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 30 (Tex. App. Dallas 1991, pet. ref d). As modified, we affirm the trial court s judgment. /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O NEILL JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 121345F.U05 -2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT TIMOTHY ALEXANDER, Appellant No. 05-12-01345-CR Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F11-34377-N). Opinion delivered by Justice O Neill, Justices Lang-Miers and Evans participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph is modified to show True. The section entitled Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph is modified to show True. The section entitled Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph is modified to show True. The section entitled Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph is modified to show True. As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court s judgment. Judgment entered November 8, 2013. /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O NEILL JUSTICE -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.
