Michael Edward Church v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 22, 2012
Docket03-11-00653-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Michael Edward Church v. State (Michael Edward Church 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 Edward Church v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00653-CR

Michael Edward Church, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-11-0146, THE HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Michael Edward Church, was convicted by a jury of the third degree felony

offense of stalking. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.072 (West Supp. 2012). Appellant opted to have

the court assess punishment and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for ten years. See id. § 12.34

(West 2011).

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 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there

are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);

Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988). Appellant’s counsel mailed appellant a copy of the brief along with a letter advising appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.

We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no reversible error.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious

grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The

judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: August 22, 2012

Do Not Publish

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)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Garner v. State
300 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Edward Church v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-edward-church-v-state-texapp-2012.