You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

George Alford Heidleberg, Jr. v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-03-00032-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 3, 2003; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

George Alford Heidleberg, Jr. was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision after pleading guilty to aggravated assault. Following a motion by the State to adjudicate, Heidleberg admitted to violating the terms of his supervision. Consequently, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to two years in prison. His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal is frivolous and lacks merit, providing a thorough evaluation of the record. Heidleberg received a copy of this brief and was informed of his right to review the appellate record and submit a pro se brief, but he did not file one. Upon review of the record and the attorney's brief, the court concluded that there are no arguable grounds for appeal, granted the attorney's motion to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment of conviction. The ruling was issued on December 4, 2003, and is not to be published.

Legal Issues Addressed

Anders Brief and Frivolous Appeals

Application: The court determined that the appeal was frivolous based on the attorney’s Anders brief, which included a thorough evaluation of the record and found no arguable grounds for appeal.

Reasoning: His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal is frivolous and lacks merit, providing a thorough evaluation of the record.

Court's Review and Affirmation of Conviction

Application: After reviewing the record and the attorney's brief, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction, indicating no grounds for appeal were found.

Reasoning: Upon review of the record and the attorney's brief, the court concluded that there are no arguable grounds for appeal, granted the attorney's motion to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Deferred Adjudication and Violation of Supervision Terms

Application: The court applied the legal principle by adjudicating guilt after the defendant admitted to violating the terms of his deferred adjudication community supervision.

Reasoning: Following a motion by the State to adjudicate, Heidleberg admitted to violating the terms of his supervision. Consequently, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to two years in prison.

Rights of Defendant to File Pro Se Brief

Application: The defendant was informed of his right to review the appellate record and submit a pro se brief, although he did not exercise this right.

Reasoning: Heidleberg received a copy of this brief and was informed of his right to review the appellate record and submit a pro se brief, but he did not file one.