Michael Anthony Austin v. State
This text of Michael Anthony Austin v. State (Michael Anthony Austin 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
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00100-CR
MICHAEL ANTHONY AUSTIN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Appellant Michael Anthony Austin appeals the judgment rendered against
him after he pled guilty without a plea-bargain agreement to assault. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion. In the
brief, counsel states that in his professional opinion this appeal is frivolous and
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. without merit. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for
relief. This court provided Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and his
counsel also advised him of his right to file a brief, but he did not do so. The
State also did not file a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the grounds that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders,
this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record.
See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v.
State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only
then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in
the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d
684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d
763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
2 PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 3, 2013
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Anthony Austin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-anthony-austin-v-state-texapp-2013.