Ham, Mickial v. Texas, the State Of

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 3, 1998
• Docket: 05-95-00737-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

it-;!s*4'4#it«*«siW'W*"*^''»*«!^k*

Date printed: February 3, 1998 10:39am

Order issued February 3, 1998

In The

(Hourt of Appeals iTtftlr Bwtrtrt of ©*xas at Bailas No. 05-95-00737-CR

MICKIAL HAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 041588

ORDER

Mickial Ham appeals his conviction for sexual performance by a child. After

appeUant pleaded no. guUty, the jury assessed punisUnren, a. ten years' ap probated for ten years, and aS10.000 fine. AppeUant, counse, fi.ed anrofion to withdraw

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).'

1 Counsel delivered a copy ^ to appellant and advised appeUant be bad arigbt to Uprose brie,. ApP^t Has filed apro se brief in response to counsel's Anders bnef. Date printed: February 3, 1998 9:57am In the^m brief, connsel summarizes the facts and concludes, without any analysis or citation to authorities, that the appea. is without merit. Counse! states summarUy that he reviewed the entire record and, with no meaningful discussion or analysis, concludes there are no reasonable grounds of error to arguably support this appeal. Counse. does not conclude the brief with aprayer that this Court gran, his motion «o withdraw. Counsel's discussion and analysis is so perfuncto^ that we are not able to determine wherher he (1) provided appeUant with adiligen. and .borough search of.he record for any arguable claim that might support .he appea, or (2) correctiy concluded .ha..he appea,was without merit. SeeJeffery v. S,a,e, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.-DaUas 1995, no pe..). ^Anders brief mas. con.ain an analysis or explanafion of the validity of the indicmen., the sufficiency of the evidence, and the admissibility of evidence adduced a, trial. The brief must discuss the validity of the punishment assessed and whether the appellant received the effective assistance ofcounse, at trial Jeffery, 903 S.W.2d at 779. The brief must a,so show • a,h, that counse, has reviewed nhiections ifu any, the objections, any io raised in the trial court. High v. Slate, 573 S.W.2d 807, 8,3 (Tex. Crim. App. [Par,. Op.] 1978). In addition, counsel must identify where .he pertinent evidence, objections, and rulings maybe found in .he record. Hign, 573 SW2d a. 813; Jeffery, 903 S.W,d a. 779. Counse, must support his analysis and con— wi.h ci.afions .o ,ega, author,,. Anders, 3B6U.S. a. 745. Aproper^ brief shou,dcohc,udebyaskingtheappe„,ecour,.ogran.counseUsmo.,on.owi.hdraw.7^, 903 S.W.2d at 780.

-2- Date printed: Februaty 3, 1998 9:57am Consequently, we STRIKE counsel's briefas inadequate under the dictates ofAnders, High, and Jeffery. We remove this appeal from the submissions docket. We ORDER counse, .o file, within thirty days of .he date of .his order, an amended brief in compliance with^m, High, and J0*. The State's brief will be due twenty-five days after counse, files tine amended brief. After the parties have rebriefed the appeal, .his Cour. will reschedule the case for submission.

MARK WHITTINGT JUSTICE