Matthew Ambrose Hisey v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 10, 2007
Docket04-07-00077-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Matthew Ambrose Hisey v. State (Matthew Ambrose Hisey 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
Matthew Ambrose Hisey v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION


No. 04-07-00077-CR


Matthew Ambrose HISEY,
Appellant


v.


The STATE of Texas,
Appellee


From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
Trial Court No. B05-359
Honorable E. Karl Prohl, Judge Presiding


Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice



Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice



Delivered and Filed: October 10, 2007



AFFIRMED

Matthew Ambrose Hisey entered a plea of guilty to the offense of felony theft and was granted deferred adjudication and placed on community supervision. Thereafter, and during the period of supervision, the State filed a motion to revoke based on the ground that Hisey committed a new felony theft offense while on community supervision. The case was called to trial and after hearing the evidence, the trial court adjudicated Hisey guilty of felony theft and sentenced him to two years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. This appeal resulted. After reviewing the record, we affirm.

Hisey's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to Hisey, who was advised of his right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's Anders brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).





Do Not Publish

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)
Bruns v. State
924 S.W.2d 176 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Nichols v. State
954 S.W.2d 83 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Matthew Ambrose Hisey v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-ambrose-hisey-v-state-texapp-2007.