Charles Edward Phinisee v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 30, 2014. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01384-CR CHARLES EDWARD PHINISEE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13-70249-H MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Fillmore Charles Edward Phinisee waived a jury and pleaded not guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102(a) (West Supp. 2013). After the trial court found Phinisee guilty, he pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. The trial court assessed punishment at two years imprisonment. On appeal, Phinisee 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 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to Phinisee. We advised Phinisee of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 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 states Phinisee entered a guilty plea to the offense. We modify the trial court s judgment to show the plea to the offense was not guilty. 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. /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 131384F.U05 -2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT CHARLES EDWARD PHINISEE, Appellant No. 05-13-01384-CR Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13-70249-H). Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Evans and Lewis 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 Offense is modified to show Not Guilty. As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court s judgment. Judgment entered July 30, 2014. -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.
