McMahon v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

McMahon v. State

529 S.W.2d 771, 1975 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1109

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 8, 1975

Docket50963

StatusPublished

Cited by63 cases

This text of 529 S.W.2d 771 (McMahon v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McMahon v. State, 529 S.W.2d 771, 1975 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1109 (Tex. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

*772 OPINION

ARCHIE BROWN, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of robbery by assault. The jury assessed the appellant’s punishment at life confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. In compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel has set forth two contentions in his brief which he contends might arguably support the appeal. However, we have found nothing in counsel’s brief or the appellate record to show that a copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to appellant, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a pro se brief, or that appellant has been advised that he would be given an opportunity to review the appellate record in order to aid him in raising any grounds that he might choose. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); and Hawkins v. State, 515 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Accordingly, we must abate this appeal in order that full compliance with the above-cited authorities may be met.

The appeal is abated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*772 OPINION

ARCHIE BROWN, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of robbery by assault. The jury assessed the appellant’s punishment at life confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. In compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel has set forth two contentions in his brief which he contends might arguably support the appeal. However, we have found nothing in counsel’s brief or the appellate record to show that a copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to appellant, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a pro se brief, or that appellant has been advised that he would be given an opportunity to review the appellate record in order to aid him in raising any grounds that he might choose. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); and Hawkins v. State, 515 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Accordingly, we must abate this appeal in order that full compliance with the above-cited authorities may be met.

The appeal is abated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 S.W.2d 771, 1975 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmahon-v-state-texcrimapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack