Courtney Me-Sha Franklin v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 19, 2014
Docket10-14-00105-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Courtney Me-Sha Franklin v. State (Courtney Me-Sha Franklin 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
Courtney Me-Sha Franklin v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00105-CR

COURTNEY ME-SHA FRANKLIN, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 25,574

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Courtney Me-Sha Franklin was adjudicated guilty of the state-jail

felony offense of credit card or debit card abuse by the trial court after it found “true”

numerous violations of the conditions of her deferred adjudication community

supervision. The trial court assessed a two-year sentence, and Appellant appealed.

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an

Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in

his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although informed of her right to do so, Appellant did not file a

pro se response to the Anders brief.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, []

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; accord Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or

“without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486

U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. We grant appointed

counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Appellant. Notwithstanding this

grant, appointed counsel must send Appellant a copy of our decision, notify her of her

right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter

certifying counsel’s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R.

APP. P. 48.4; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins (Chief Justice Gray concurs with a note)* Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 18, 2014 Do not publish [CR25]

Franklin v. State Page 2 *(Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment to the extent it affirms the trial court’s judgment. A separate opinion will not issue.)

Franklin v. State Page 3

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)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Ex Parte Owens
206 S.W.3d 670 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Courtney Me-Sha Franklin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courtney-me-sha-franklin-v-state-texapp-2014.