Michael Lee Martin v. the State of Texas

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00075-CR

Michael Lee Martin, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY NO. CR27,645, THE HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Lee Martin pleaded guilty to the offense of indecency with a child by

contact. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11. The trial court sentenced Martin to nineteen years’

imprisonment and rendered its judgment of conviction accordingly. See id. § 12.33. Martin

appealed his conviction.

Martin’s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw supported

by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Martin’s court-appointed attorney’s brief meets the

requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating

that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763,

766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that

Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”).

Martin’s counsel represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to

Martin; advised Martin of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue

discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided Martin

with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of

this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Martin did not

file a pro se brief and did not request an extension of time to do so.

We have independently reviewed the record and considered Martin’s appellate

brief filed by counsel, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the

trial court’s judgment of conviction.

__________________________________________ Karin Crump, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: September 12, 2025

Do Not Publish