Michael Clifton Broughton v. State
This text of Michael Clifton Broughton v. State (Michael Clifton Broughton 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-09-00131-CR
Michael Clifton Broughton, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 61549, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 20, 2007, following a guilty plea, appellant Michael Clifton Broughton
was adjudged guilty of failing to appear in a felony case and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.10 (West 2003). As provided in a plea bargain agreement,
imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on community supervision. On
February 6, 2009, appellant’s supervision was revoked and sentence was imposed after he pleaded
true to several of the allegations in the State’s motion to revoke.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s
brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se
brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is granted.
The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.
____________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Affirmed
Filed: August 6, 2009
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Clifton Broughton v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-clifton-broughton-v-state-texapp-2009.