MITCHEL EDWARD MORGAN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

MITCHEL EDWARD MORGAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 06-17-00027-CR

Decided: June 30, 2017

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mitchel Edward Morgan pled nolo contendere to criminally negligent homicide with a deadly weapon.1 Following a bench trial on punishment, Morgan was sentenced to five years' incarceration.

Morgan's appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Counsel provided Morgan with copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed Morgan of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated March 31, 2017, this Court informed Morgan that his pro se response, if any, was due on or before May 1, 2017. Morgan did not filed a pro se response and did not request an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk's and reporter's records, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, we must either dismiss the appeal or affirm the trial court's judgment. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

FOOTNOTES

1.   See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.05(a) (West 2011).

2.   Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Bailey C. Moseley Justice