Maxwell Polidor, Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 16th District Court of Denton County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-18-00442-CR ___________________________ MAXWELL POLIDOR, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 16th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F15-1205-16 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2016, Appellant Maxwell Polidor, Jr. pleaded guilty to two counts of thirddegree-felony forgery pursuant to a plea bargain and received a three-year term of deferred adjudication. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.34, 32.21. In 2017, the State moved to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt on the basis that he had been charged in separate proceedings with drug possession and possession of a false license plate and that he had failed to complete required community service, failed to participate in therapy, failed to report to his probation officer, and failed to pay supervision fees. Appellant retained counsel but later asked his counsel to withdraw and chose to represent himself. The trial court proceeded in 2018 to find the State’s allegations to be true, revoke the terms of deferred adjudication, find Appellant guilty of both counts of forgery, and sentence him to eight years’ incarceration. Appellant now appeals the trial court’s judgment. After Appellant filed a notice of appeal pro se, we abated this appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether Appellant wished to pursue the appeal and to continue to represent himself. Appellant subsequently filed a letter with this Court and the trial court stating that he wished to pursue this appeal without the assistance of retained or appointed counsel, and he made similar statements at the abatement hearing. We therefore reinstated this appeal and Appellant has proceeded pro se. Nevertheless, Appellant has failed to file a brief. We twice notified Appellant by letter of this failure and requested a response advising the court of any reason for 2 his failure to file a brief. Appellant has not responded. By order dated April 26, 2019, we notified the parties that we would be considering the appeal without briefs and only for fundamental error. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4); see also Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We have reviewed the clerk’s and reporter’s records and have not discerned any unassigned fundamental error. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id. Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: August 8, 2019 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.
