Natex Corporation, d/b/a Natex Corporation Architects v. Paris Independent School District--Appeal from 6th District Court of Lamar County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 06-10-00052-CV

Case Date: 11/01/2010

Plaintiff: Perez, Johnny

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 156th District Court of Bee County

Preview:In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________ NO. 09-09-00302-CR NO. 09-09-00303-CR ____________________ DAWAYNE FONTNETTE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 92795 and 92796

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Dawayne Fontnette pled guilty to aggravated robbery and assault on a public servant. In each case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Fontnette guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Fontnette on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $2500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Fontnette's unadjudicated community supervision in both cases. Fontnette pled "true" in both cases to two violations of the conditions of his community supervision. In each case, 1

the trial court found that Fontnette violated the conditions of his community supervision and found him guilty. In the aggravated robbery case, the trial court assessed punishment at forty-five years of confinement. In the assault on a public servant case, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. The trial court ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. Fontnette'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 September 10, 2009, we granted an extension of time in each case for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the 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 rebrief 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. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on February 9, 2010 Opinion Delivered February 17, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 68. 2

1

Download 10579.pdf