Stone, Alfred Lee, WR-22,735-47

Appellant Alfred Lee Stone was convicted by a jury of burglary of a building; two prior felony convictions were alleged for enhancement and the trial court assessed a 70‑year sentence.
Facts: a police officer on patrol responded to a ‘‘suspicious person’’ call at ~4:00 a.m.; officer observed a man pushing an air compressor and carrying a TV in a high‑crime area and identified appellant as the man.
Officers found a garage with a broken lock and white dust inside; appellant had white dust on his clothing and gave inconsistent stories about possession of the property. An ID card in the name Alfred Stone was found on him; the officer initially released him but later appellant was arrested.
On appeal Stone raised six points: unlawful restraint/wrongful imprisonment (mistaken identity), defects in the indictment, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, insufficiency of enhancement allegations, and related briefing complaints.
The Court of Appeals (Fifth District, Dallas) reviewed waiver/briefing deficiencies but addressed the merits and affirmed the trial court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stone)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Unlawful restraint / wrongful imprisonment (mistaken identity)	Arrest/confine was based on mistaken identity; ID card showed a different name (Albert), so arrest unlawful	Record shows ID read "Alfred Stone," same as appellant; no discrepancy	Overruled — no evidence of name discrepancy; points 1 and 3 denied
Indictment sufficiency	Indictment inconsistent with suspect's name and thus failed to prove required allegations	Indictment named Alfred Stone; evidence showed ID matched indictment	Overruled — record does not support appellant's allegation
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel failed to highlight name discrepancy, failed to object to use of prior convictions, prior counsel failed to appeal priors as requested	Strickland standard not met; record contains no support for claimed failures or name discrepancy	Overruled — record does not support ineffective‑assistance claims (Strickland not satisfied)
Enhancement paragraphs / collateral attack on priors	Prior convictions used for enhancement were invalid because previous counsel did not appeal, making enhancement insufficient	Appellate record lacks post‑trial records; appellate brief cannot collaterally attack priors; no record support for appellant's premise	Overruled — claim amounts to impermissible collateral attack; enhancement allegation upheld

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Willis v. State, 785 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (appellate points must correspond to trial objections to preserve error)
Sterling v. State, 800 S.W.2d 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (appellate complaints different from trial objections preserve nothing)
Smith v. State, 683 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (failure to cite authority in brief preserves nothing for review)
Pierce v. State, 777 S.W.2d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (briefing must set out legal theory to preserve appellate review)
Ex parte Cruz, 739 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (review totality of counsel's representation at punishment stage for effectiveness)
Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (record must support ineffective‑assistance claims)
Legg v. State, 594 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (collateral attack on prior conviction improper in enhancement context)
Alexander v. State, 757 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd) (same principle on impermissible collateral attack)

Disposition: Affirmed (trial court judgment affirmed).