Albert Charles Kucinski v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 15, 2007
Docket07-06-00235-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Albert Charles Kucinski v. State (Albert Charles Kucinski v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Albert Charles Kucinski v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

NO. 07-06-0235-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 15, 2007

______________________________

ALBERT CHARLES KUCINSKI,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 181 ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 17249-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Albert Charles Kucinski appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, for manslaughter with a deadly weapon, i.e. a motor vehicle.  Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders (footnote: 1) brief in which she has stated that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded that the appeal was without merit.  Included with her brief, is a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response or brief pro se.   By letter dated December 19, 2006, we also notified appellant of his right to tender his own brief or response and set January 18, 2007, as the deadline to do so.  Appellant filed two motions to extend the response deadline which were granted and resulted in an extension to March 8, 2007.  To date, appellant has filed neither a response, brief nor another request for extension.  

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders , appellate counsel discussed  four potential areas for appeal all having to do with claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.  However, counsel then satisfactorily explained why each argument lacked merit.  We have also conducted our own review of the record, see Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and failed to uncover any reversible error.  

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn

         Chief Justice

Do not publish.

FOOTNOTES

1:

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Albert Charles Kucinski v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-charles-kucinski-v-state-texapp-2007.