Frederick Douglas Branch v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 26, 2015
Docket01-14-00842-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Frederick Douglas Branch v. State (Frederick Douglas Branch 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
Frederick Douglas Branch v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 01-14-00842-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/26/2015 4:27:26 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

NO. 01-14-00842-CR

FREDRICK DOUGLAS BRANCH § IN THE § FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS VS. § FIRST COURT HOUSTON, TEXAS § 1/26/2015 4:27:26 PM STATE OF TEXAS § OF APPEALS CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk MOTION TO WITHDRAW PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes E. CHEVO PASTRANO, counsel for appellant FREDRICK DOUGLAS

BRANCH, and hereby move to withdraw from representation of appellant pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In support of this motion, counsel shows as

follows:

Counsel has thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal, and, for these reasons is

thoroughly familiar with the case.

Counsel has, in the exercise of their professional judgment, determined that the

instant case presents no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, and, in accordance with the

Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), now so advises the

court and requests permission to withdraw. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

In accordance with Anders, counsel has, contemporaneously with this motion, filed

a brief outlining all issues which might arguably support an appeal and explaining why

those issues are meritless. Id.

Counsel has furnished the appellant with a copy of said brief, and a copy of this

motion, thus apprising appellant of counsel’s actions.

Having determined that the instant appeal is wholly frivolous and having complied

with the briefing and notice requirements of Anders, counsel now requests that they be

allowed to withdraw.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel for Appellant pray that the Court grant their request and allow counsel to withdraw from this case.

Respectfully submitted,

THE PASTRANO LAW FIRM, P.C. The Old Cotton Exchange Building 202 Travis Street, Suite 307 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: 713.222.1100 Facsimile: 832.218.7114

By:___________________________ E. CHEVO PASTRANO State Bar No. 24037240 chevo@pastranolaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on January 26, 2014, a true and correct copy of the above

and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Harris County,

Texas, via facsimile and/or email.

E. Chevo Pastrano

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)
Frederick Douglas Branch v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederick-douglas-branch-v-state-texapp-2015.