Cody Warden v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 11 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed September 26, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00195-CR No. 05-18-00196-CR CODY WARDEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. MA-1704576-N, MA-1761228-N MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Fillmore Appellant Cody Warden waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily injury and violation of a protective order. Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court sentenced appellant to 365 days in the county jail, probated for twenty months in each case. The trial court also assessed a $200 fine in the violation of protective order case. The State later moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision alleging appellant violated several conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motions. The trial court granted the State’s motions, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and assessed punishment at 365 days in the county jail in each case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed briefs in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The briefs present 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 briefs 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 briefs. 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 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. /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 180195F.U05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT CODY WARDEN, Appellant No. 05-18-00195-CR On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA-1704576-N. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore. Justices Lang and Schenck participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court revoking community supervision is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 26th day of September, 2018. –3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT CODY WARDEN, Appellant No. 05-18-00196-CR On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA-1761228-N. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore. Justices Lang and Schenck participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court revoking community supervision is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 26th day of September, 2018. –4–

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.