Michael Ray Coe v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 8, 2024
• Docket: 02-23-00160-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00160-CR ___________________________

MICHAEL RAY COE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1601549

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 2020, Appellant Michael Ray Coe pleaded guilty to the offense of failure to

comply with sex offender registration requirements, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 62.102(b)(3), and the trial court deferred finding him guilty of the offense and

placed him on five years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. In 2023, the

State filed a Petition to Proceed to Adjudication, alleging that Coe violated the terms

of his deferred adjudication community supervision by committing a new offense.

The trial court held a hearing, found the allegations in the State’s Petition to be true,

and sentenced Coe to five years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.33

(punishment range for second-degree felony). Coe timely filed a notice of appeal.

After determining that Coe’s appeal was frivolous, Coe’s court-appointed

appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that

motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400

(1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in compliance with

Kelly v. State, counsel provided Coe with copies of the brief and motion to withdraw;

he informed Coe of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to

seek discretionary review pro se should this court declare his appeal frivolous; and he

sent Coe a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313,

319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Coe had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the

2 Anders brief but did not do so. The State declined to file a brief and instead filed a

letter in which it agreed with appointed counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined

that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record

that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: February 8, 2024