Jeffrey Paul Mahanay, Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 5, 2025
• Docket: 07-24-00387-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00387-CR

JEFFREY PAUL MAHANAY, JR., APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas1 Trial Court No. CR15887, Honorable Bryan T. Bufkin, Presiding

June 5, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Appellant, Jeffrey Paul Mahanay, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s judgment

finding him guilty of continuous violence against the family2 and sentencing him to a ten-

year term of incarceration. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion

1 This cause was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court

by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. In the event of any conflict, we apply the transferor court’s case law. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.11(a). to withdraw supported by an Anders3 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that she has conducted

a conscientious examination of the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the

controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,

counsel notified him of her motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion,

Anders brief, and a copy of the appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro

se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported

by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro

se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has

not filed a brief.

By her Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such

issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2 App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we

conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of

Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.4

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.

4 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.