Alfred Lynn Gallander v. The State of Texas Appeal from 253rd District Court of Liberty County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ___________________ NO. 09-14-00423-CR ___________________ ALFRED LYNN GALLANDER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR30821 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this appeal, Alfred Lynn Gallander’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief contending no arguable grounds can be advanced to support reversing Gallander’s felony conviction of burglary of a building. Based on our review of the record, we agree with Gallander’s counsel that no arguable issues exist that would support a decision to reverse the judgment being appealed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 A jury found Gallander guilty of burglary of a building, a state jail felony. Following the punishment phase of Gallander’s trial, the jury determined that Gallander should serve a two-year sentence and assessed a $5,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1), (c)(1) (West 2011). On appeal, Gallander’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record; in the brief, Gallander’s counsel concludes that any appeal would be frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Gallander to file a pro se brief; however, Gallander has not filed a response. After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Gallander’s counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that any appeal would be frivolous. Therefore, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Gallander’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on July 31, 2015 Opinion Delivered November 18, 2015 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Gallander may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. 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.
