Michael David Miller v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 23, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00240-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00240-CR __________________

MICHAEL DAVID MILLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F22-40827 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Michael David Miller with intoxication

manslaughter, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.08. Miller

pleaded guilty to the offense. The State did not consent to Miller’s waiver of a jury

trial as to punishment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.13(a) (“The defendant

in a criminal prosecution . . . shall have the right, upon entering a plea, to waive the

right of trial by jury, conditioned, however, that . . . the waiver must be . . . with the

consent and approval of the court, and the attorney representing the state.”). Miller

1 pleaded guilty in the jury’s presence, and after hearing evidence on punishment, the

jury found that Miller used or exhibited a weapon—his vehicle—during the offense,

and the jury assessed punishment at eighteen years of incarceration. The trial court

sentenced Miller in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Miller timely filed an appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that he has

reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted an extension of time for Miller to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Miller.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support

an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered

the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found

none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

2 counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on April 14, 2025 Opinion Delivered April 23, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1 Miller may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3