Denise Gail Dooley v. State

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 22, 2015
Docket06-14-00240-CR
StatusPublished

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

Bluebook
Denise Gail Dooley v. State, (Tex. 2015).

Opinion

No. 05-1 4-00240-CR FILED IN IN The Sixth Court of APPeals 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS Texarkana, Texas 4/22/2015 3:42:39 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk

DENISE GAIL DOOLEY,

AppeTTant, \/

THE STATE OF TEXAS' Ag>peJ'lee.

MOT]ON TO WITHDRAW PURSUANT TO

AA/DERS V. CALTFORNTA,386 U-S.738 (196'7)

TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES JEFF T. JACKSON, counsel for Appellant Denise

Gai.l Dooley, and hereby moves to withdraw from

representation of Appellant pursuant to Anders v'

Cal-ifornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1961) ' In support' of this

mot-ion, counsel shows as follows: I.

Counsel has f hororrcrh I v 9frv! reviewed the record on appeal ' :nrl CIII\-ti/ fnr !v! fheSe urr\ reasons, is thoroughly familiar with the

II. counsel- has, in the exercise of his professional

judgment, determined that the instant case presentsi no

nonfrivolous issues for appeal, and, in accordance with the Supreme CourL's decision in Anders v. Cal-ifornia, 386 U'S' 738 (L961), now so advise the court and requests permission to withdraw. Anders, id- at 144' III. In accordance with Anders, Counsel has,

contemporaneously with this motion, filed a brief outlining all issues which might arguably support an appeal and

exprlaining why t.hose issues are meritless . Anders, Id. IV.

counsel has furnished the appellant with a copy of said bri-ef, and a copy of this motion, thus apprising appeallant of counsel's actions- V.

Having determined that the instant appeal is wholly ri rrnl orrs - and fIITVVMD, qrIV h:rz'i IIqvIIIY ncr r:omnl vvrlrt/!Ivv i ecJ wi th tha l-rri v!!v of i no and notice

reqr-iirements of Anders v. Cal-if ornia, counsel now requests thal: he be allowed t.o withdraw, pursuant to Anders.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, iI 'i s nrarzecl that the

Cou:rt grant counsel' s request and all-ow counsel to withdraw from this case, pursuant to Anders v. CaLifornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1961) .

pa

ckson SBOT No. 24069916 736-4 Hwy 259 N. Kilgore, TX 15662 Phone: 903-65 4-3362 Fax: 817-887-4 333 A#t-zLUL A.L ltey F^- LnL Annal rlPPCLLatt I =nf L /

Denise Gaif DooJey CERTIFICATE OF SERV]CE

Pursuant to Tnx. R. App. P. 9.5, I certify that on April 22, 2015, a copy of this motion was mailed via first class

U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Van Colson Brown Gregg CountY District A1_l-arnA\/ rreuv!rrv_1

SBOT No. 03205900 101 E" Methvin, Ste. 333 Longview, TX 75601 Phone: 903-236-8440

Attorney for APPellant

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Denise Gail Dooley v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denise-gail-dooley-v-state-texcrimapp-2015.