IN RE: EXMARK MANUFACTURING COMPANY INCORPORATED--Appeal from 139th District Court of Hidalgo County

State: Texas

Docket No: 13-09-00438-CV

Case Date: 10/30/2009

Plaintiff: Douglas Ray English

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Preview:Douglas Ray English v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
/**/
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-04-00198-CR & 04-04-00199-CR
Douglas Ray ENGLISH,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2001-CR-5767 & 2001-CR-7042W
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2005
AFFIRMED
Douglas Ray English pled no contest in two separate causes for possession of less than one gram of a controlled
substance. In accordance with his plea bargain agreement, English was placed on two years community supervision in
each cause. English subsequently pled true to violating the terms of his community supervision, and he appeals the trial
court s judgments sentencing him to concurrent sentences of six months in a state jail facility. English s court-
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18126.html[8/20/2013 7:46:04 PM]

appointed attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she concludes
that the appeals have no merit. Counsel provided English with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to
review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, no
pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1996, no pet.). English did not file a pro se
brief.
We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief. We agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The
judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Appellate counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols v. State, 954
S.W.2d at 86; Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18126.html[8/20/2013 7:46:04 PM]

Download 18126.pdf