Alvin Jerome Polidore v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-07-532 CR NO. 09-07-533 CR ____________________ ALVIN JEROME POLIDORE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 98180, 98731 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Alvin Jerome Polidore pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child and possession of a controlled substance. On March 29, 2007, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Polidore guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Polidore on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1,000 in both cases. On October 5, 2007, the State filed motions to revoke Polidore s unadjudicated community supervision in each case. Polidore pled true to two violations of the conditions of his community supervision in each case. The trial court found that 1 Polidore violated the conditions of his community supervision in both cases, found Polidore guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child and possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at forty-five years of confinement for the aggravated assault of a child case and ten years of confinement in the possession of a controlled substance case, with the sentences to run concurrently. Polidore s appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel s professional evaluation of the records and conclude the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 28, 2008, we granted extensions of time for appellant to file pro se briefs. We received no response from appellant. We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgments.1 AFFIRMED. __________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on May 28, 2008 Opinion Delivered June 11, 2008 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 68. 2
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.
