Christopher Scott Collins v. The State of Texas Appeal from 382nd Judicial District Court of Rockwall County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Opinion Filed March 2, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00790-CR CHRISTOPHER SCOTT COLLINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2-16-026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Evans, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill Christopher Scott Collins waived a jury trial and pleaded not guilty before the trial court to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a knife. After the trial court found appellant guilty, appellant pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. The trial court found the enhancement paragraph true and assessed punishment at nine years’ imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief stating that 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, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). 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, counsel contends in her brief that the trial court’s judgment should be modified to reflect a back-time credit of 559 days rather than the 528 days recited in the judgment. We note, however, that there is nothing in the record that supports this claim or that gives any details on the dates that appellant remained in jail pending the outcome of this case. Thus, we decline counsel’s request to modify the trial court’s judgment. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 170790F.U05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT CHRISTOPHER SCOTT COLLINS, Appellant No. 05-17-00790-CR On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court, Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2-16-026. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Bridges and Evans participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered March 2, 2018. –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.
