Jon Michael Miranda v. State
This text of Jon Michael Miranda v. State (Jon Michael Miranda 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
Opinion issued April 7, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00590-CR ——————————— JON MICHAEL MIRANDA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13-CR-0598
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jon Michael Miranda, pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony
offense of aggravated robbery, without an agreed recommendation as to punishment.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2), (b) (West Supp. 2015). The trial court
found appellant guilty as charged and, following a punishment hearing, assessed his punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement. This sentence is within the
applicable sentencing range. See id. § 12.32(a) (West Supp. 2015). The trial court
certified that this was not a plea-bargain case, and that appellant had the right of
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and
new counsel was appointed.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an
Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore,
the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting
a professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to
the record and legal authority. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has
thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of error
that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v.
State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant’s counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the motion
to withdraw and Anders brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a
response and to get access to the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, a copy of the record has been sent to appellant
2 for review. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal and conclude
that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for
review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87
S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines,
after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous);
Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must
determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of
each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no
arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may
challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition
for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178
S.W.3d at 827 n.6.
CONCLUSION Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).1 Attorney Calvin D. Parks must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of
1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. 3 this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jon Michael Miranda v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jon-michael-miranda-v-state-texapp-2016.