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.
LeeAndrea Mathis aka Lee Andrea Mathis, 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 convicted LeeAndrea Mathis of evading arrest with a motor vehicle. After finding two enhancement paragraphs alleging prior felonies to be true, the jury assessed punishment at seventeen years in prison.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that this 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 records 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. Appellant requested and received a 60-day extension of time to file his brief by November 30, 2010. No pro se brief has been filed and no further extension of time was requested.
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 judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Jeff Rose, 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. 03-10-00219-CR
Decided: March 02, 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)