Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rex Carlton Crowder, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury found appellant Rex Carlton Crowder guilty of two counts of indecency with a child by contact and assessed punishment for each count at fifteen years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11 (West 2011). The trial court rendered judgment on each count, ordering the sentences to run concurrently.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App.1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex.Crim.App.2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: NO. 03–10–00256–CR
Decided: August 18, 2011
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)