Michael Christopher Terrell v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 6, 2010
Docket04-09-00353-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Michael Christopher Terrell v. State (Michael Christopher Terrell 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
Michael Christopher Terrell v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00353-CR

Michael Christopher TERRELL, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2005-CR-8409 Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 6, 2010

AFFIRMED

Following his adjudication of guilt and the revocation of his community supervision, the trial

court sentenced defendant Michael Christopher Terrell to eight years’ confinement and a $1,200 fine.

Defendant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel

concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant was informed of his right to review the record. Counsel provided 04-09-00353-CR

defendant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to file a pro se brief. Defendant filed

did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without

merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel’s

motion to withdraw.1 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.).

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 … No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Should defendant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, defendant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4.

-2-

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)
Michael Christopher Terrell v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-christopher-terrell-v-state-texapp-2010.