Manuel Luz Aleman v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 7, 2014
Docket10-14-00126-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Manuel Luz Aleman v. State (Manuel Luz Aleman 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
Manuel Luz Aleman v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00126-CR

MANUEL LUZ ALEMAN, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-1252-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Manuel Luz Aleman entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of

possession of a controlled substance, namely, cocaine, in an amount of one gram or

more, but less than four grams. A jury assessed his punishment, enhanced by a prior

felony conviction, at twelve years’ imprisonment. Aleman appealed.

Aleman’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an

Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in

his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although informed of his right to do so, Aleman did not file a

pro se response to the Anders brief.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, …

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; accord Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or

“without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486

U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have conducted

an independent review of the record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly

frivolous, we affirm the judgment.

We grant appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of

Aleman. Notwithstanding this grant, appointed counsel must send Aleman a copy of

our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and

send this Court a letter certifying counsel’s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006).

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed October 16, 2014 Do not publish [CR25]

Aleman v. State Page 2 Aleman v. State Page 3

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)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Ex Parte Owens
206 S.W.3d 670 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Manuel Luz Aleman v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manuel-luz-aleman-v-state-texapp-2014.