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.
Ronald Wayne Mitchel APPELLANT v. The State of Texas STATE
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Appellant Ronald Wayne Mitchel appeals his conviction and eight-year sentence for felony DWI. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp.2012). Mitchel's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in her professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Mitchel did not file a pro se brief, but he did file a motion—apparently in response to his counsel's motion to withdraw—requesting that we appoint him another counsel for this appeal.
Once an appellant's court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511; Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 922–23. Only then may we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, we deny Mitchel's motion because he has had court-appointed appellate counsel up until this point, and we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Tex.R.App. P. 47.2(b)
FOOTNOTES
FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.. FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.
BILL MEIER 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. 02–12–00191–CR
Decided: June 13, 2013
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.
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)