Ex Parte Mary Jane Flores

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ex Parte Mary Jane Flores

DecidedAugust 5, 1998

Docket04-97-00797-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Ex Parte Mary Jane Flores (Ex Parte Mary Jane Flores) 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

Ex Parte Mary Jane Flores, (Tex. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 04-97-00797-CR

EX PARTE Mary Jane FLORES

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 94-CR-6456 Honorable Mary Román, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 5, 1998

AFFIRMED

In this habeas corpus appeal, Flores alleges a violation of her right not to face double jeopardy. Appellant's first conviction, for murder in 1995, was reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct. See Flores v. State, 940 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he raises one arguable point of error, whether double jeopardy principles bar retrial of Flores following reversal of her conviction because prosecutors suppressed exculpatory evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently held that retrial following a reversal due in part to prosecutorial misconduct does not present a constitutional claim of double jeopardy. See Ex parte Davis, 957 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim App. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1307 (1998).

Counsel concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief. Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Flores did not file a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we GRANT counsel's motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, No. 04-97-00030-CR (Tex. App.--San Antonio July 23, 1997); Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177, n.1.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions

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

No. 04-97-00797-CR

EX PARTE Mary Jane FLORES

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 94-CR-6456 Honorable Mary Román, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 5, 1998

AFFIRMED

In this habeas corpus appeal, Flores alleges a violation of her right not to face double jeopardy. Appellant's first conviction, for murder in 1995, was reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct. See Flores v. State, 940 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he raises one arguable point of error, whether double jeopardy principles bar retrial of Flores following reversal of her conviction because prosecutors suppressed exculpatory evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently held that retrial following a reversal due in part to prosecutorial misconduct does not present a constitutional claim of double jeopardy. See Ex parte Davis, 957 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim App. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1307 (1998).

Counsel concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief. Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Flores did not file a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we GRANT counsel's motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, No. 04-97-00030-CR (Tex. App.--San Antonio July 23, 1997); Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177, n.1.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ex Parte Mary Jane Flores, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-mary-jane-flores-texapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack