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